Welcome to the GradCafe

Hello!  Welcome to The GradCafe Forums.You're welcome to look around the forums and view posts.  However, like most online communities you must register before you can create your own posts.  This is a simple, free process that requires minimal information. Benefits of membership:

  • Participate in discussions
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Search forums
  • Removes some advertisements (including this one!)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hi, I've attached an argument AWA essay. Any feedback is much appreciated. The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager. "One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of its original flow. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. The conclusion is based on a number of tenuous connections between the restriction of the flow of water and saving money for the Sunnyside Corporation. The facts appear to be distorted to present a profitable conclusion for Sunnyside Corporation. However, if these assumptions were to be examined and found to be false, then the argument completely falls apart. The first five floors of Sunnyside Towers had the water flow to their showerheads modified to one third of its regular flow. The author assumes this will result in less water being used by the residents and in turn mean waned expenditure for Sunnyside Corporation. It fails to take into account that if residents of the building are dissatisfied by the water flow of the showers, they might opt to take baths instead. A bath requires a considerable larger quantity of water than showers and if a number of residents make the switch to a bath, the water use of the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers would not decrease but have the opposite effect-it would increase. Residents might also choose to have longer showers or might try opt for autodidact fix by replacing the shower head or adding additional ones. Without the hard evidence, the actual readings of the water usage before and after the restriction, any conclusion is simply conjecture. The argument does not give a specific number or percentage of complaints. If there is only one apartment per floor in Sunnyside Towers and the management has received five complaints, the restriction of water floor has caused problems to 100% of the tenants affected by it. Without fully understanding the consequences, the extent to which the restricted water floor has affected the lives of tenants, the plan to extend it to the rest of the building should be tabled. If the majority of the people living on the first five floors have had their lives adversely impacted, it is most likely that the same rule will be true for the rest of the building. It could cause the tenants to take serious steps in retaliation perhaps even opting to live in a different place. This would cause Sunnyside Corporation a loss instead of the predicted profit. The argument would have been much clearer if the complaints had been explicitly stated. In conclusion, the argument is seriously flawed because of its’ illogical assumptions and therefore is unconvincing. It could be strengthened if the author mentioned actual results and gave numerical evidence to back the conclusion. Without the information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and thus, the Corporation should not act on it.
  2. Thank you! I do sincerely appreciate your feedback and am trying to use your advice and improve. I'm really grateful for your replies as you're picking faults no one else noticed. I'll keep pushing myself to get a better score.
  3. Hi Sara, Thank you for your feedback. I'm trying my best to work out what the question is asking and then come up with examples. Please keep in mind I only have 30 minutes to do so and the GRE needs you to pick a side. I've written another issue essay with the topic below. It would be very beneficial if you could go over it and see if there has been any improvement. Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Science the field of reason and logic. The field of Aristotle and Galileo. Since the beginning of time, science and scientists have brought about change by looking through the telescope, the microscope, using math and philosophy, theories have been established. Theories that that the majority have almost always disagreed with. Scientists have often been heretics and outcasts but they stuck to their knowledge and eventually the rest of humanity saw it too. But does science need to advance at that pace? The ponderous path that relies on government sponsorship where resources are given to those that agree with the ruling majority. It would be best if governments did not place any restrictions on scientific research and development so that science can advance free of any constraint. Science and religion are often at war with the other despite the fact they are two sides of the same coin. In the past, in Italy, when the leaders in power were Catholic, Galileo was locked up for his beliefs. Now, our Christian leaders place restrictions on stem cell research. While we may not know for certain, but if scientists were allowed to conduct stem cell research without qualifications, it is possible that they may attain a breakthrough for growing skin, or tissue or even organs. Despite the government restrictions on the type of stem cells scientists can work with, they have managed to grow skin which has been used to reduce the suffering and increase the likelihood of survival for burn victims. The possibilitis of advancement using all types of stem cells may be endless. So should the changing governments with their different religious views, different alliances and different priorties be the ones making the call. If it is an ethical concern, would it not be better to let the scientists and the people decide? In the United States of America, the Institutional Board of Review (IRB) oversees all the research being conducted. Scientists are required to submit their proposal for review and can only begin conducting research after the IRB has deemed it acceptable. The members that review the proposal are educated individuals from different fields. If we already have a system in place that decides whether or not research is ethical, why do we need additional government review. History is witness to the times governments have been complicit in unethical scientific research. Take Nazi Germany for example, Jews and individuals with disabilities were subject to number of cruel and inhumane experiments in the name of scientific research. Such research has even been used to advance the fields of astronomy and travel in space. This is not anomaly. In the United States, there have been a number of such horrific practices. There is the Stanford Prison Experiment or the case of Little Albert. There is also the infamous Tuscany trials where government officials and health care professionals were aware of the experiment and let it happen anyway. Therefore, the onus of restrictions should not fall on the governements but rather on the scientific community. With transparency and awareness, we can advance science faster while realizing our ethical boundaries. Granted, the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by scientists who decided it was acceptable to subject humans to such trauma. The experiment was conducted without oversight and perhaps government restrictions could have prevented trauma. But the same would be true if other members of the scientific community were aware that such an experiment was taking place. In conclusion, government restrictions on science and development tend to be uninformed and biased. If there are restrictions to be placed, it should be determined by the scientific community and the majority of the general population.
  4. Thank you very much! I did not realize I changed the question and your feedback has given me a lot to reflect upon. This was tremendously helpful. I'm going to continue working to reduce the "clunkiness". If you do happen to have the time, would it be possible to go over another one? I would really appreciate it!! Am sending good karma your way! Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. Ever since man walked out the cave and discovered fire, we have continued our explorations across the earth and into space. The technological revolution has made the world a smaller place-we have easy access to ancient texts as well as the latest news article, we can communicate with people across the world, can travel thousands of miles in hours-but at what cost? Technology is an insidious ailment that has become pervasive in our society. Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Whatsapp is burgeoning. Facebook has over 1 billion members whereas whatsapp has 500 million. These members are from all sectors of society. They differ in their economic status, geographical regions, political and religious points of views, only binded together by a common platform that is Social Networking Sites. While this may sound like a good thing, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Research has shown that Social Networking sites create a phenomenon titled "Fear of Missing Out" or FoMo.Such a phenomenon materializes as a feeling of sadness or anxiety when you are browsing social media, because no matter how much you've acccomplished, you cannot have done enough as all of your friends combined. Social media is reflection of the highlights of everyone else's life and few or none of the depressing parts are posted on there. When a young girl of 13 years old goes online, she is made to feel inadequate and insecure which sometimes leads to a number of mental illnesses. Eating disorders are on the rise, so much so scientists are now considering treating body image issues as a normal part of a young teens life. The link between technology and eating disoders might not seem obvious but if you were to reflect upon it. Images on films, televisions, magazines, instagram posts, facebook pictures are all doctored using technology like Photoshop. This makes both men and women aim for an ideal that is near impossible to achieve and instead results in disordered eating. Technology is a massive invasion of privacy. Whether you wish to or not, the sites you visit is all stored and your information could be sold or is sold to advertising companies. The posts you view on social media or the news articles you browse on the web are all suggestions made specifically to suit your tastes and opinions. It has led to the rise of a phenomenon called "Fake News". Since there are enumerable news websites available, all competing for the endorsement of viewers, news has become "eye catching" or tantalizing, more calumny than fact. Due to free speech, no one is monitoring the websites online and the onus is on the user to decipher whether or not the articles they are reading is fact or garbage. With the increase use of technology in every day life, it has also become increasingly easier for hackers to gain access to your private information as evidenced by the Panama leaks or the images of private pictures of celebrities. For mindless games and entertainment, you end up sacrificing control over your own personal life. Granted, technology has many advantages. The development of new Artifical Intelligence has many uses such as creating socially assistive robots or virtual therapy. Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more apparent that technology is being treated to fix the issues old technology has caused. In the end, we must all ask ourselves this, the technology we use is it causing more harm than doing good?
  5. This is timed and using no spell check. Any feedback is much appreciated! Here is the prompt: Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying. Education-the great equalizer-is an opportunity for individuals to expand their horizons. Universties are institutions of learning, discussion and inventions. If they were to limit the courses students get to choose from, it would greatly impact intellectual thought and discourse. The average age of students entering university is usually among 17-19 years. Do we expect adolescents, who until very recently had to ask permission to use the restroom, pick a career and stick to it? The very notion seems absurd. There are numerous reasons for why universities should not mandate students to only take course within their own field. There may be a few children who knew from the age of 5 what they wanted to pursue for the rest of their lives and start working towards it early. Nonetheless, the majority of individuals do not fall into that category. People need time to explore different subjects, understand their interests and skills; only then can they make informed decisions about their future. For example, a life of academia and research might seem appealing to a high schooler who has come across relatively few professions at their age. What they may not realize it the mundaneness of research-of repeating the same experiment over and over again till some increment of success is achieved. Such a student might not have even heard of cryptography or urban planning, but might have the affinity, aptitude and skills for it. By forcing students to only study courses withing a particular field, you can limit their outlook and restrict their chances of finding a career that makes them happy. Even if a student has picked a field and is certain that field is for them, by branching out and studying other subjects disparate from their majoy, it gives them perspective. A math major can take a music course and by understanding time and rhymth, could apply the skills to his own major. A biology major can take a literature course and by learning about how Frankenstein created his monster; learn about the perils of science and the plight of patients. Sometimes connections are made and inspiration is found in the most bizzare places. Our place is not to question why such things happens, but to create a place where such inspiration is facilitated. There are also certain required courses that no matter what field you are pursuing, they are vital and must be a requirement. This generally is a year of english (or the equivalent dominant language), a year of math and some kind of basic science. Scientists need to write research papers, office workers will need to write memos or emails, artists will need to write about their art. Writing, or some adaptation of it is used by everyone. The same holds true for math. Everyone has to pay taxes or calculate tips. And some basic form of science is required to understand our own bodies so we know what is good for it and what isn't; how to tell when something is wrong. There are certain advantages for only studying major specific courses such as university becomes cheaper, students cangain specialization earlier etc. Nevertheless, the negatives far outweight the benefits. Therefore, universities should make a vast number of electives available for students.