Critic my sample Gre essay.

[bbdd2]

What score would you give this AW essay. With reasons.

Topic

Claim : in order to help small businesses thrive, the government should play a minimal role in private business matters.

Capitalism for all its merits in the development of a free market economy and its casual freedoms has a fatal flaw. A winner takes all mentality which inadvertently could lead to larger firms, businesses with financial backing swallowing up the smaller less recognized and usually local industries, firms and businesses. In this regard, the need for government to help small scale industries thrive is exigent.

In 1999, Walmart built two megacenters in Seattle, Washington and a trend was noticed by researchers at Washington State University. The installation of Walmart invariably led to the closure of various seattle local business food chains which employs locals and has been a favorite of the locals until the big guns came in. This closure led to the loss of jobs for many people who depended on the small scale food outlets in Seattle for a source of Income and as such the unemployment rate spiked. This prompted the local Seattle council, noticing a negative trend to come in as adjudicators in a big fish vs small fish issue and decided that Walmart’s licensing will not be renewed. The effects of this impending decision remains to be seen however, we can extrapolate from other cities like Amsterdam, Netherlands and Oslo, Norway which have done the same that it usually leads to a fortuitous outcome. Furthermore, all over the world indigenous industries have to be protected by the government from quasi predatory big companies with worldwide connections and possibly outside funding with which the local businesses cannot compete. This concept known as Indigenization is practiced in nearly every country of the world despite globalisation because the need to keep local industries going is important.

In analysing whether government has a right to intrude in local businesses rather than letting the course of free market forces take precedence, it is imperative to look at why the government was elected in the first place! certainly not to fold hands and watch local businesses owned by tax payers and probably hundreds of years old and run by generations of families run down due to inability to compete with the money flowing from the big leagues. It is ultimately the responsibility of a citizen friendly government to ensure that the locals are protected from any deleterious outsider influence.

In certain circles, it may be argued, that government interference in business portends a negative trend in the economy because susceptibility successive changes and policies may affect outcomes and a constant government meddling in business affairs is never a good thing. Government meddling in business affairs cannot be equated with making legislature that protects the citizens. It doesn’t defy any Keynesian rule of economics neither does it undermine the fundamentals of capitalism and free market economies. A good example of this is Switzerland, home to several financial institutions but also a very protectionist in its dealings with outside influence especially in business.

Governments that are distanced from the citizenship and negative economic trends cannot be said to be democratic -which historical consensus has agreed to be the best system - however imperfect it may be. In view of such, a democratic government in its bid to keep up the ideals of government for the people, by the people and of the people have to ensure that small businesses thrive by ensuring that business environments are conducive for local industries private or public because it is the right thing to do and that is what the voters who put them in power expect.

[spellbanisher]

What score would you give this AW essay. With reasons.

Topic

Claim : in order to help small businesses thrive, the government should play a minimal role in private business matters.

Capitalism for all its merits in the development of a free market economy and its casual freedoms has a fatal flaw. A winner takes all mentality which inadvertently could lead to larger firms, businesses with financial backing swallowing up the smaller less recognized and usually local industries, firms and businesses. In this regard, the need for government to help small scale industries thrive is exigent.

 

Several problems with this opening paragraph. First, the claim did not include the term "capitalism." If you are going to use any term, you need to define it first. Second, there are a number of grammatical problems. The first sentence is a run-on. You need to either place a comma after "capitalism" and "freedoms," or write, "For all its merits...and its casual freedoms, capitalism has a fatal flaw." The second sentence is awkward and needs to be more strongly connected to the first, which could be accomplished in a number of ways, such as "Capitalism's flaw is a winner takes all mentality..." Third, don't be tentative in your argument. You are arguing that capitalism's fatal flaw leads to larger firms swallowing up smaller ones. Either remove the "could" or replace it with "often" or "usually" or "leads to" or "enables" or "encourages," etc. You can't call it a fatal flaw if it is only a hypothetical.

 

 

In 1999, Walmart built two megacenters in Seattle, Washington and a trend was noticed by researchers at Washington State University. The installation of Walmart invariably led to the closure of various seattle local business food chains which employs locals and has been a favorite of the locals until the big guns came in. This closure led to the loss of jobs for many people who depended on the small scale food outlets in Seattle for a source of Income and as such the unemployment rate spiked. This prompted the local Seattle council, noticing a negative trend to come in as adjudicators in a big fish vs small fish issue, and they decided that Walmart’s licensing will not be renewed. The effects of this impending decision remains to be seen; however, we can extrapolate from other cities like Amsterdam, Netherlands and Oslo, Norway which have done the same that it usually leads to a fortuitous outcome. Furthermore, all over the world indigenous industries have to be protected by the government from quasi predatory big companies with worldwide connections and possibly outside funding with which the local businesses cannot compete. This concept known as Indigenization is practiced in nearly every country of the world despite globalisation because the need to keep local industries going is important.

Okay, there are several ways you could improve this paragraph.

 

First, you need a better topic sentence. This paragraph seems to be demonstrating the negative effects that big business has on on small business and on the overall economy using Seattle as an example. So the topic sentence would need to convey something along the lines of "The negative impact that big businesses have on local economies is reflected in the destruction of small business and rising unemployment rates following the construction of two Walmarts in Seattle."

 

Second, you may want to split a paragraph like this in two. In the second half of the paragraph, you start talking about indigenization, which could be its own paragraph. The thing you need to remember, however, is that an assertion is not an argument. You claim that cities such as Norway and Oslo have "Done the same," which presumable means that they protected small businesses against big businesses in some way and that led to a "fortuitous outcome." What was that fortuitous outcome? Be specific.

 

Third, like the opening paragraph, there are a number of stylistic and grammatical issues. I've underlined parts that add nothing to the sentence (i.e. redundancy and verbosity), and there are also a number of run-on sentences.

 

 

 

In analysing whether government has a right to intrude in local businesses rather than letting the course of free market forces take precedence, it is imperative to look at why the government was elected in the first place! certainly not to fold hands and watch local businesses owned by tax payers and probably hundreds of years old and run by generations of families run down due to inability to compete with the money flowing from the big leagues. It is ultimately the responsibility of a citizen friendly government to ensure that the locals are protected from any deleterious outsider influence.

This paragraph really appeals to emotions more than puts forward a rational argument. There are a number of reasons why a government is "elected" in the first place; indeed, governments are often composed of disparate elements. There are a lot of assumptions in this paragraph which are neither universal nor self-evident.

 

 

 

In certain circles, it may be argued, that government interference in business portends a negative trend in the economy because susceptibility successive changes and policies may affect outcomes and a constant government meddling in business affairs is never a good thing.

This sentence is unclear. What does "susceptibility successive changes" mean.

 

Government meddling in business affairs cannot be equated with making legislature that protects the citizens.

Again, this sentence is unclear.

 

It doesn’t defy any Keynesian rule of economics neither does it undermine the fundamentals of capitalism and free market economies.

Define Keynesianism, and why would it be bad to define a Keynesian rule? Again, don't take your assumptions for granted, and when you use a signficant term define it. 

 

A good example of this is Switzerland, home to several financial institutions but also a very protectionist in its dealings with outside influence especially in business.

What is so great about Switzerland? Furthermore, are Swiss conditions comparable around the world? You need to explain why Switzerland is a good example.

 

Governments that are distanced from the citizenship and negative economic trends cannot be said to be democratic -which historical consensus has agreed to be the best system - however imperfect it may be.

Some would say that the historical census says that capitalism is the best system. This is an appeal to authority, and a vague one at that.

 

In view of such, a democratic government in its bid to keep up the ideals of government for the people, by the people and of the people have to ensure that small businesses thrive by ensuring that business environments are conducive for local industries private or public because it is the right thing to do and that is what the voters who put them in power expect.

 

I would probably give this essay a three. It is adequately organized into an intro, body, and conclusion(although I would prefer double spaces between paragraphs), and it has a clear and sustained argument. However, it contains a lot of assertions and assumptions which are unexplained or unsubstantiated, and there  are significant grammatical issues, such as verbosity, run-ons, and incomplete sentences, which often impairs clarity. On a minor point, the essay erratically shifts between present and past tense.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2014 by spellbanisher

[bbdd2]

Wow

Thank you so much.

Guess I've got work to do.