adrianaferreira

Thank you, you guys helped a lot! Yeah I know, I was taking a look at the Issue tasks because they are the most difficult to me. But if he got a problem with one of the Analytical prompts, I thought I could take a special look at it!

Hi MathCat! Yeah, I struggled to find logical fallacies on this argument as well and those are the ones I could come up with. I usually find a lot of them and can manage to choose with which I want to work with, but I think the timing of the task took its toll on this matter. Thank you for the suggestion on the rhetorical questions though. About the verbose advice, I swear I try to type a lot but I'm always afraid of getting too wordy and boring in the end. Thanks a lot! PS: Just for curiosity, what was your exam's prompt? So I can prepare myself in advance for that one hahaha

I just took the practical test again, and copied the same essay to the response field. I added 1 paragraph before the conclusion and restated information that could have been given for the argument to be strengthened (which I had already done implicitly on my body paragraphs), although it is not exactly a given task on the prompt itself. I got evaluated again and they gave me a 5 score, although I kept my original 5 paragraphs intact. So maybe I'll add that up to my next essays instead of just implicitly mentioning it on my body paragraphs. But 5 from a 2 with only 1 paragraph different? I think this difference is humongous for such minimal changes. Maybe it was a different person that rated it, who knows. I think this topic can be closed, I appreciate a lot your participation on it. I posted on 3 different forums and you guys were the only ones that responded! Here's the latest feedback I got, in case anyone is interested: Argument Essay Unmanned Space Flight - 5 Hi! You presented a competent essay by discussing the inherent flaws in the statement. You also suggested ways to strengthen the argument, which is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, discussing the faulty reasoning of the argument in greater detail will merit you a higher score. Make sure that you address the conclusion of the argument and analyze it as well. Is it an economically viable option to invest all resources in unmanned space flights? You could show more skill with the use of language. Good luck! Here's some additional feedback: • State the flaws in the argument more clearly. • Good overall organization.

Thank you TakeruK and CFBrown again! I see your points, although I think the nature of my argument's assumptions didn't allow me to expand my examples as much as the assumptions on the Mason City's argument. But I understand your critiques and I am going to try to absorb it, thanks a lot! Nevertheless, below is a score 2 response provided by ETS official guide. All paragraphs are way less developed than mine, the word count must be almost half or even less, full of grammar errors and other logical mistakes. I think it is way worse than mine to get the same score, for example. I understand mine is not a 6 response, I'm not a native speaker and it is very hard to get passed the language barrier, but I think I deserved a 4 which is what I need. Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback! You weren't mean or anything it's always good to hear constructive critiques. This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in it which is not logical. First, this statement mentions raking water sports as their favorite recreational activities at the first sentence. However, it seems to have a ralation between the first sentence and the setence which mentions that increase the quality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. This is a wrong cause and result to solve the problem. Second, as a reponse to the complaints from residents, the state plan to clean up the river. As a result, the state expects that water sports will increase. When you look at two sentences, the result is not appropriate for the cause. Third, the last statement is the conclusion. However, even though residents rank water sports, the city government might devote the budget to another issue. This statement is also a wrong cause and result. In summary, the statement is not logical because there are some errors in it. The supporting setences are not strong enough to support this issue.

Hi CFBrown, thank you for replying! I bought the official guide for the GRE provided by ETS, is it the same you have? On the sample 6.0 Issue essay, that is provided on this book, the author has the same essay structure as mine and the tasks are the same as well! This is the score 6 response provided on the book and its prompt: In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding. Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument. Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river. Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage. A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding. _______________________________________________________________________________ I don't understand what I did different from this level 6 response to get graded with a 2-point essay. =((( The only difference I can see is the word count, this essay has 540 words and mine has 450. I also used some abbreviation, but that's all. Can you tell any more differences from the structure itself? Thanks!

Can anyone of you guys please help me?? Princeton reviewers gave a score of 2.0 points on this essay. I know it's not good, but I think 2 is a little harsh on it. Down below is the feedback and the essay respectively. Thank you very much in advance! FEEDBACK: Hello Adriana, you seem to have some understanding of the nature of the writing task as you have mentioned three faulty assumptions in the author's argument. However, your discussion of the same needs to focus more on the bad reasoning instead of the issue. Also, instead of referring back to your discussion of the faulty assumptions, you are required to specify your suggestions to improve the given argument separately. All the best! Here's some additional feedback: • Each paragraph should focus on one idea. ESSAY & PROMPT: The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine: “Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight." Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. The argument states that we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight because manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Stated like that, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there's no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws. First, the argument readily assumes that the series of unmanned space probes and satellites was a sample big enough to be successful in a long term period. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, a series of 5 space probes and satellites 100% successful doesn't mean that the next 1.000 will be as well. The argument could have been much clearer if it mentioned the amount of series released into space and the percentage of success that they achieved. Second, the argument claims that the unmanned space flight gathered a great deal of useful information. This is, again, a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails does not demonstrate any correlation between the manned and unmanned space flight information. To illustrate, manned space flight could gather information about the texture of the land on a determined planet by touching it, and the probes and satellites could gather information such as temperature and air humidity by other devices. Unmanned space flight gathered useful information, but it doesn't mean that the manned type didn't gather information equally useful. If the argument had provided the type of information gathered by each type of space flight, then it would have been a lot more convincing. Finally, it is said that unmanned space flight gathers information without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Are the costs and risks less on unmanned space flight? It is just said that the costs and risks are not the same associated with manned space flight, which doesn't mean that they are lower in comparison. For example, the manufacturing of space probes and satellites is a cost that is not noticeable on manned space flight. Moreover, there could still be risks of sending devices to space even if they are not associated with the risks of sending men and women to space. Without the answer to the cited question one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinker than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had provided all the relevant facts named on this essay.Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and opened to debate.