First-Time Writing AWA Prompts

[Malak]

Hi Everyone! This is my first time writing AWA essays for the GRE. I wanted to get a feel of where my responses are currently before I can move forward. Any insight would be appreciated. I am a native English speaker FYI. 

Issue Prompt: 

Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.

Write a response in which you discuss which view  more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above.

Teaching morality should be the foundation of education because it provides a basis for people to function well in a society in a way that logical reasoning alone isn't able to accomplish. 

Teaching morality allows society to be productive and creates meaningful interactions that aren't solely based on self-interest. Children aren't necessarily born with a sense of right or wrong, but rather learn from the environment around them. Humans' first instinct, generally, is to be self-interested in order to survive. Teaching morality tames that instinct in a way that logical reasoning isn't able to. Logically, it would make sense for humans to steal, cheat, and perhaps even murder to achieve what they want (Whether it be more money, fame, status or success). Working to earn everything you have is not something that makes sense logically when you can simply act in selfish ways and achieve what you want that way. However, teaching morality can allow people to think twice about their actions.  For example, a child may re-consider stealing another student's lunch money to buy food for themselves if they were taught that stealing is morally wrong and that that kind of hurtful behavior towards another human being in unacceptable. 

In addition, teaching logical reasoning as the cornerstone of education doesn't necessarily produce moral people, especially when those people create cases of the "end justifiying the means". For example, in most workplaces, there are codes of ethics that govern the actions of worker, such as research laws that protect humans from being taken advantage of. If scientists are simply taught logical reasoning, for example, it would make sense logically to conduct unethical experiments on disadvantaged populations (such as terminally ill patients or disabled people) to advance the human condition. However, morality can allow scientists to distinguish right from wrong and to recognize when the end doesn't justify the means, which is something that logical reasoning fails to acknowledge. 

However, if logical reasoning is taught in accordance with morality, it can aid in the creation of a moral society. For example, if people are taught to care for the lives of other human beings, then humans come together to save each other during emergencies (such as fires). However, if people aren't taught how to think logically about how to safely evacuate people from a building, then the morality taught isn't sufficient and people could harm themsevles and the others they're trying to help (such as failing to properly evacuate a disabled person). However, if people are taught how to think logically in a crisis (step one, step two, etc.) along with being taught that human life is sacred and meaningful, then they'll know how to respond and help others properly without just necessarily saving their own skin (Which would make sense logically - it doesn't make sense to help someone else out in an emergency when you can escape yourself). 

A foundation of logical reasoning isn't enough to build a moral society because human instinct would lead people to use that logic to act is self-interested ways. Teaching a foundation of morality can tame the need to act selfishly and allows for the creation of meaningful interactions that acknowledges the wants and needs of other people.

 

Argument Prompt: 

A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.

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 if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

 

The conclusion that the pet food company shouldn't invest more resources into the recall investigation is flawed because the company didn't check for cross-contamination, time of production as a factor, or animal food sensitivity to make their assessment regarding their food. 

 The company's declaration that the chemicals found in its food were approved for use in pet food doesn't mean that those chemcials weren't cross-contaminated with other chemicals that are harmful to pets. They assumed that the chemicals were the only aspects of the pet food that could've led to the harmful side affects. The company failed to investigate whether the machines used to manufacture the food at the time had residues of other ingredients that are harmful to pets or whether the packaging itself had harmful ingredients that contaminated the pet food. This is a phenomenon all too common with human food, and could have occurred with pet food. Spinach, for example, is an approved edible food that farms are able to sell, but occasionally spinach harvests become contaminated with feces and cause outbreaks of E.Coli or listeria in human populations, despite usually being safe to eat. Had the company mentioned that they investigated other aspects of the production process for signs of cross-contamination, then their conclusion would've made more sense.

In addition, the company also assumed that time of production wasn't a factor in the harmful side affects. Perhaps even though the chemicals themselves are approved and safe for pet use, it's possible that some of these chemicals have a short life span and thus, a short shelf life that allows them to be safe to consume for pets. It could be possible that the company manufactured this batch of pet food several months before shipping it to supermarkets and pet stores in order to clear the previous batch of food at pet stores. The time between production and consumption could've attributed to the harmful side affects because some of the chemicals could've lost their edibility in that time. Had the company been open about when the food was manufactured, and had they done thorough research on the shelf life and safety of foods instead of assuming time wasn't a factor, then their conclusion would also be more plausible. 

Finally, the company assumes that approved usage of chemicals in pet food means that the chemcials are approved for ALL types of animals. Perhaps certain species of animals are known to be more sensitive to certain chemcials than others. It's possible that the pet food was better suited for cats, but if it was marketed as suitable for all types of pets, then it's possible that dog owners gave the food to their dogs when dogs are sensitive to a specific chemcial. One human example is the case of peanuts. Many people can eat peanuts without a problem and peanuts are an approved ingredient to use in many food products. However, there is a certain percentage of the population that is allergic to peanuts and can suffer severe health consequences from consuming them. It could be the same for this pet food and the chemicals in it. The company should've done more research on the compatibility of the chemicals with various animals types before assuming that ALL types of chemcials are suitable for all animals. 

By failing to consider other aspects about the chemicals in their pet food, the company failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the causes of vomiting, lethargy, and other illnesses. Having simply found that the chemcials are approved and safe for use in pet food isn't enough because there are many different factors that contribute to illness. The company should go back and put in more resources into this investigation.

 

[stel]

The first thing that caught my eye is the fact that you have written paragraphs that flow. And as a writer at https://www.freelancer.com/ and https://dissertationwriter.org I'd say that's actually not that quite simple and many do make mistake in following correct structure and writing unambiguous paragraphs but you did it from the first try. That's a huge plus. Still, make sure you proofread your essays since I found a couple of grammar mistakes. Repeat the rules of when you are supposed to use definite and indefinite articles and also when to omit them.

Good luck

[I_Charge_by_the_foot]

4-4.5, not bad. you'll be able to get away with <4 grammar mistakes without it outright affecting your score since the graders understand small mistakes occur in a time crunch. The bigger point is cogency. You have that.

Edited February 16, 2018 by I_Charge_by_the_foot