No problem ankitg.
I like the introduction; it shows that you have a somewhat firm grasp of what the task is about. Your thesis statement is clearly stated and right on the reader knows exactly what opinion you are rooting for.
In the following paragraphs however, things quickly devolve: In the first paragraph you seem to be discussing the negative impact of too many restrictions. It is a good point but always create accord between your thesis and your topic sentence in each paragraph. For instance, here, instead of saying "too many restrictions lead to delay in progress..." you could say, few or no restrictions promotes research growth and development. Untrammeled research potential could, arguably yield the most prolific projects since thought capacity is uninhibited. Then go ahead and discuss a case where few restrictions could possibly have yielded a prolific result (and please be elaborate, logical and convincing). Then conclude your paragraph by reaffirming your stance based on the point you just made: on this basis therefore, few or no restrictions should be placed on research and development.
The second point was elusive and opaque, I could not understand the point let alone the example to support it. There did not seem to be a logical connection between the point mentioned and the case brought forward to support it. Are you saying that governments give pharma companies patients? But then there are restrictions on the number of patients to prevent the pharma companies from charging exorbitant prices on the drugs? So the government gives patients but also sets restrictions on the number of patients? If that is the case can it not be argued that those restrictions are not meant to impact scientific research directly but drug prices? And more so, the restriction is on the government agency in charge of giving pharma company patients? (assuming that governments give pharma companies patients like you mentioned). PLEASE, you want to make sure that your point is clearly stated, and your supporting case is directly linked to the point you mentioned and cogent enough. Again always conclude your paragraph like i mentioned above.
The last point is a complete digression from your thesis so far- the type of thing test readers hate seeing. You see, so far, you have been making a case for FEWER restrictions. Now all of a sudden you say restrictions are necessary in military research. It maybe that you are trying to address the part of the prompt stating that one should discuss specific instances where adopting the recommendation would be disadvantageous (few restrictions would be disadvantageous in military research since the potential to leak would be higher): in that case, fair enough. But your intention is not well conveyed. There is no shift indicator to suggest that the direction of your essay is changing in terms of opinion and meaning. No where else is it more true than in the analytical writing section of the GRE, that you have to use words like although, but, meanwhile...etc, to alert the reader of shifts in meaning and opinion- and incidentally signal that you're addressing the part of the prompt which requires you to consider the opposite view. So always remember to use these words when shifting.
Even after considering the opposite view, always close that paragraph by mentioning that your view is superior. This shows the reader that you are convinced about your line of reasoning.
The conclusion was okay.
As a tip, make sure to write 6 paragraphs on the Issue task. The 4 middle paragraphs should be elaborate. The introduction could be the same length as one you just wrote, same with the conclusion.
(That is my secret to scoring a 5.5 on that section). Let me know how it goes
ankitg got a reaction from thisguy2017 in Please grade my issue task? Thank you!