Plz score my GRE essays

[nguyen.thaihoang]

This is the first time I take the GRE test, and it is also my first time to attend this forum. Because I wanna find a place to improve my GRE writing skill, I will post my two first practice essay on this site. Hope you guys check and score them for me, I will really appreciate that.

 

Issue essay:

Q :

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

A :

The issue of whether relying more and more on technology to solve problems will deteriorate humans’ ability to think for themselves is a controversial one. On the one hand, many argue that people gradually lose their mental ability and social awareness due to overusing the advancement of engineering and technology. On the other hand, some believe that modern technological devices are produced by human, if people don’t use those devices, there won’t be motivation for technological employees, who mostly contribute to social progression. However, in this analysis, my essay will be favoring technology not as a deterioration of thinking capability but as a beneficial tool to develop human’s mind.

Conspicuously, the claim tries to connect people’s reliance on technology with the deficiency of thinking ablity. Because the number of individuals addicting to using modern technology is increasing, it is thought negative that creativity and awareness will be decrease. Technology, without questions, creates more convenient means of working problems out. Let’s take an illustration, in order to perform a primitive calculation, an ordinary person can use a calculator, a computer, or a tablet. Many various choices seem to prevent human from analyzing the problems more deeply, and the existence of hi-tech devices cause such difficulties not to be big deals.

However, the fallacy mentioned above doesn’t indicate that technology restrain human’s ability to think. Technology just offers people an easier and more convenient way to solve problems. In the previous example, a calculator, a computer, or even a tablet assists us to figure out numerical obstacles. A person may have some arithmetic or algebraic equations with the results expressed as a chain of decimal numbers. In this circumstance, the problem can be resolved manually, but it takes a lot of time to do. Technology shorten the amount of time we spend working out a particular obstacle, and for that reason people can save time to think of or to tackle another problem. In stead of noting down and meticulously solving the equation on a piece of paper, the the man in prior example can consume his time to acquire the comprehension about computer technology or to invent some useful mechanical tools.

Moreover, technology itself encourages people to discover the new horizon and brainstorm to explain the way in which technological devices work. One blatant example is the invention of the computer, which plays an crucial role in today society. The first version of the old computer was invented in 1940s, and at that time it contained a lot of flaws. However, that invention stimulated the curiosity of the other scientists and engineers all over the world. Since then, the world beheld consecutive huge steps in developing computers, from the very first enormous to the delicate accurate one as we can see nowadays. Based on studying from the obsolete technology, repairing the errors, and creating the new idea, people can develop computers and use them wisely and effectively.

In conclusion, technology becomes more and more important in aiding of human’s activities. Admittedly, relying too much on technology can cause some negative consequences. However, it can’t be denied that technology not only help people save time but also motivate human’s effort to figure out problems. Therefore, technology should be seen as an effective tool rather than a thing that deteriorate human’s ability to think.   

 

Argument Essay:

Q : The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.

"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."

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.

A :

The argument that putting a ban on skateboarding in Central Plaza will definitely improve the current bad situation of store owners there is not utterly logically cogent. This conclusion is based on the premises that the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been plummeting while the number of skateboarders has increased. The reasoning in the argument is logically flawed, however, because it relies on numerous assumptions that appear to be wholly unsupported.

First, the argument assumes that the complaints coming from many shop owners in Central Plaza blame their dropped sales on skateboard users. It is vague, however, because the author does not cite any evidence about this. For example, there could have been a survey asking both the shop owners and the customers if they actually loathed the existence of skateboarders. By citing “many store owners”, the author seems to be subjective and unspecific in reasoning, for “many” may not have been representative of all particular owners. What will happen, if shopping customers really enjoy the performance of skateboarders or skateboarders’ acquaintances and skateboarders themselves, make up most of the shoppers? Then, prohibiting will definitely worsen the problem. Unless there is a good survey which is valid, representative, and countable, it may make no sense to condemn the skateboard users.

In addition, the argument implies that forbidding skateboard using will improve the bad condition. The author tries to make a concrete connection between the skateboard users and the decrease of shoppers, but this effort is not effective by reasons of the holes in deduction. One crucial thing that the author omits is whether the existence of skateboard users is the only reason of decreasing number of customers. There may be other causes, for instance, the price of purchases is so expensive that the buyers choose another mall, the attitude of sellers seems to be impolite and languid, the environment surrounding Central Plaza is so contaminated and uncomfortable, and even the facility of the plaza may become downgraded. In order to strengthen the argument, the author should give out the evidence and the report carefully made to show that skateboarders are the main reason why customers don’t want to visit the plaza.

Furthermore, by linking the frequently presence of skateboarders with the dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza, the author of the argument builds the unfounded implication that skateboard players cause these problems. The point is that the author cannot exhibit any evidences or eye witnesses to prove that players themselves leave litter or cause damage to the plaza infrastructures and facilities. The source of these acts of sabotage remains unclear until the bodyguards of Central Plaza conduct an investigation into the causes. For example, the guards can install a secure system composing of cameras and alert signals so that they can record the image of the persons who do not drop litter into waste basket or try to damage the properties in Central Plaza on purpose. Thanks to these proof, the management board of Central Plaza can catch the offenders and find out whether these problems caused by some of the skateboard users. If skateboard players have nothing to do with litter and vandalism throughout the plaza, a ban on them is fruitless. Regardless of determining the real cause of the increase of litter and vandalism, the author cannot have the good reasoning to prohibit the skateboarders.

In conclusion, the argument that prohibiting skateboard users will help business in Central Plaza back into its good condition is rather weak. If the author could offer a suitable and representative survey, show evidences proving that skateboarders cause the increase in litter and vandalism, and exhibit the report expressing the opinion of customers about skateboard users, the argument would be greatly strengthen. Without this additional support, however, there is no reason to accept the conclusion of the argument.