Anyone interested in rating my practice essays?

[mseph]

Hi,

 

I am prepping for GRE these days with practice tests. Manhattan gre is an excellent source, but it does not grade the essay part, unlike Princeton Review.

 

So, if there is anyone who would be willing to spend some time to read my essays and rate them, I would very much appreciate. If you don't want to rate but still give me some feedback or advice, that's great also. Anything is appreciated! (I am going to copy and paste the essays I wrote for first two practice tests from Manhattan, so there are total of four. But if you want to review just one or two, that's great too! I labelled them as A and B so you could refer to which one you would like to review.)

 

Issue B and Argument B are the ones I took several days before Issue A and Argument A. In between the two exams, I read more sample essays and went over random topics on ets website and brainstormed a bit. My goal for essay is to receive a 5 or better.

 

So, here are essays:

 

Issue A

 

Claim:  Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.

 

Reason:  Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.
 

The claim suggests that on top of the advice to "follow your dreams," the advice should also focus on picking "worthy goals" since many people's dreams are inherently selfish. While this reasoning may hold some truth, there seems to be more cases where following dreams create symbiosis among people. For young people, following the dreams and achieving them would eventually benefit not just those who achieved, but also people around them.

 

First, following dreams are not necessarily inherently selfish. Asking a few children of their dreams would help to validate this statement. Children at young age have many dreams, abounding from singers, actors, presidents, doctors, fire officers, and policemen to name a few. It is very usual for a girl to want to become a post officer, and the girl at 6 years of age would not calculate the benefits she would get and use cost-benefit analysis in determining what she wants to do. She would not determine her goals based on how much she would receive from other people, but rather, how much she can give; and through working as a post officer, how she could serve for others. 

 

The dreams that are selfish, on the other hand, would consist something along the line of "getting more money and power from suppressing others." These could include becoming a dictator or lucrative businessmen who benefit from child labor. It is much more rare that people would have these kinds of dreams. It is much more common to see people pursuing dreams of singers, actors, presidents, doctors, fire officers, and policemen. 

 

Some may argue that these are still selfish, since people pursue these goals due to their own interest. They may argue that people want to become an actor because it is something they like the most, while not prioritizing others to enjoy their performance. They can argue that those who want to become doctors hide their desires for money and prestige in the superficial face of serving the community and helping the patients with illness. 

 

However, these intentions are not necessarily selfish. While these desires could be self serving and pursuing the goals are mainly due to their self-interest, selfishness is entirely different story. Being selfish is hurting or suppressing others in order to benefit oneself. Becoming an actor does not supress or hurt other people, nor becoming a doctor. True, when the person achieves his or her dream, the person would be excited with the feeling of achievement, thus serving him or herself. However, through the achievement, he or she would be able to contribute to the society whether it is through acting performance or medical service. As a result, following the dreams could also be self-serving on top of benefiting others, and it is not necessarily selfish unless it is from evil minded, such as becoming a dictator. 

 

Therefore, the young people should be given the advice of "follow your dreams" as much as they need, as long as their dreams are not "selfish" oriented. When further emphasis of picking "worthy goals" is still necessary, it should not be because their dreams are inherently selfish, but rather, to reflect on what they really want to be and what they really want to achieve, and truly reflect on whether their dreams are "selfish" or not.

 

Argument A

 

The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:

A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors.

 

According to the letter to the president of Seatown University, the faculty committee suggests that Seatown University to institute a free-tuition policy for the professors in order to increase the faculty retention rate. While this seems plausible, this letter obtains unwarranted assumptions and thus needs more in-depth investigation before deciding to institute such policy.

 

First, correlation is not necessarily a causation. The letter states Oceania University as an example of high faculty retention with the offer of free tuition at the university for their college-aged children. However, the letter fails to support the causal relationship between the two. Do the professors at Oceania University really care about the free tuition policy? Do majority ofnprofessors at Oceania have children at college age attending Oceania University? Or was it something else that Oceania University provided that lured the new professors? In order to strengthen the argument, the letter needs to support this correlation as a causation. How many professors at the university actually benefit from this tuition policy that leads to the high morale? How many new professors at Oceania were lured to Oceania because of the tuition policy? The letter does not provide any causal links or evidences. 

 

Furthermore, even in case that the tuition policy was the causation of the higher faculty retention, referring only to Oceania University is not necessarily enough to assume that the tuition policy will be successful at Seatown University. For a case study, more number of cases would help to strengthen the argument. Are there more universities which adopted the same policy and experienced different retention rate? Did it influence to increase the faculty retention? Considering one case as an example could be weak in order to state an argument for the tuition policy. Also, if referring to Oceania University would be sufficient, the author of the letter needs to provide a reasoning why Oceania University is a great example to consider, but not X University. What are the common characteristics each Oceania University and Seatown has, so that it is worthwhile to examine Oceania University? Do Oceania University have similar number of faculty as Seatown University? Also, more significantly, do both schools have about the same number of professors who could benefit from the tuition policy? The letter does not support.

 

In addition, advocating a free tuition policy at Seatown because it was successful at Oceania is also unwarranted assumption. Even with an assumption that the free tuition policy caused higher retention at Oceania, the letter needs to provide a hypothesis that it is likely to work at Seatown University. If Seatown as lower retention than Oceania, is is due to lack of the free-tuition policy? Even if it is not directly due to the free-tuition policy, would adopting the policy help to enhance morale among the faculty and lure new professors? Are there majority of professors who have children attending Seatown University so that they would benefit from the free tuition policy? Before advocating for the tuition policy, it would be necessary to investigate the actual cause of relatively lower retnetion rate at Seatown and also whether adopting the tuition policy would enhance the morale and lure new professors. 

 

Therefore, in order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide more information and evidences. The author needs to show the correlation between the higher faculty retention rate and the tuition program is actually a causal relationship. Second, the letter needs to validate its reasoning why it is referring to Oceania University in particular, and if there is not specific reason to focus on single university, consisting the case study with more number of cases would definitely help to strengthen the argument. Lastly, it needs to provide an evidence or propose a hypothesis that why the tuition policy would also work at Seatown University as well.

 

Issue B

 

People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.

 

Making decisions based on emotions is not necessarily part of a poor decision making process. When people make decisions, the process involves multi-dimensional facets. They can involve past experience, emotions, logics, or others' advices into their decision making process. As a result, whether the decision could be justified with logic afterwards or not, people who make decisions based on emotions are not necessarily poor decision makers. We can consider a few examples to observe that decisions based on emotions are integral part of our lives, and this strategy can actually strengthen the decision making process. 

 

First, we can consider one of the most common decisions we make in our lives: our profession. For a more specific case, let's observe sports players. Many world's renown sports players start the sports at early age, since it is favorable for athletes to start at earlier age. Yu-Na Kim, an Olympic Champion figure skater started figure skating when she was about 6-7 years old, and she did not make the decision to become a professional figure skater based on logic, but rather on her emotions. She loved figure skating, rather than used logic to become a professional figure skater. She did not calculate the costs required and the benefits she would gain, but decided to be a professional skater because she purely enjoyed and loved it. 

 

If she had used logic, we might not have been able to be thrilled by her performance at Vancouver in 2010. Her home country, South Korea, is not a great place for figure skaters. It never has produced a single world-renown figure skater, has no single figure skater has won a World Championship title, and lacks an ice rink for figure skaters to practice. It would be poor decision to become a professional figure skater in South Korea since it will require a lot of costs but not much benefit. As a result, while her decision was purely based on emotions rather than logic at the moment of the decision making, and she later justified it with a statement, "I decided to become a figure skater because I loved skating," her decision to become a figure skater was not necessarily "poor."

 

Therefore, we can view that decisions based on emotions are not necessarily poor. Decision making process can take many forms, and making decisions based on emotions is one of the forms it can take. Otherwise, we would see only decisions based on cost-benefit analysis and would never see a miracle such as an Olympic Champion in figure skating from South Korea.

 

Argument B

 

An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet. 

 

According to the argument, the government of Tagus should work to promote for the new type of millet in order to combat vitamin A deficiency. However, there must be few questions answered in order to validate this argument and for the government to decide whether it should work to promote the new type of millet or not.

 

First thing we should examine is the fact that vitamin A deficiency Tagus has. The quote infers that Tagus has vitamin A deficiency. However, this is not sufficient information. We need to know the severity of vitamin A deficiency. How much portion of the Tagus population has vitamin A deficiency? Does it require a serious consideration? The different size of the population with vitamin A deficiency would require different type of government actions. The government would have to react to vitamin A deficiency accordingly. Is it 90% of the Tagus population have vitamin A deficiency? Or is it 0.3% of the population that have vitamin A deficiency, which rose from 0.2% of last year? If the population with vitamin A deficiency is marginal, then it might not be necessary for the government to promote for the more expensive new millet seeds. Thus, the population with vitamin A deficiency (with further information whether it increased or stayed the same would be a plus) needs to be stated.

 

With the information of the portion of the population with vitamin A deficiency, we need further information on the cause of this vitamin A deficiency in the Tagus population in order to efficiently combat this disease. Was the deficiency caused by the original millet itself or the lack of the original millet? If the original millet lacks vitamin A, then it would be logical for the government to consider promoting for the new millet. However, if there was some adverse influence, such as natural disaster or particularly bad weather, and thus the production original millet was significantly bad and the poor production caused the nutrient deficiency among the population, replacing the original millet with the new would not be necessary. Therefore, we need to know the cause of vitamin A deficiency among the population in order for the government to consider the promotion of the new millet.

 

Therefore, we need a few more questions answered in order for the government to consider the promotion of the new millet. It would significantly strengthen the argument of the statement by providing more information of the severity of vitamin A in Tagus and clearly show how the current situation in Tagus requires the new millet in order to fight the vitamin A deficiency. Also, by providing information about the cause of the vitamin A deficiency, and showing that the original millet lacks vitamin A (if that is the case), the statement would be able to persuade the government more strongly.