Please rate my Argument Essay? My test is in 2 days - Thank you very much!

[adrianaferreira]

Can anyone of you guys please help me??
Princeton reviewers gave a score of 2.0 points on this essay. I know it's not good, but I think 2 is a little harsh on it.
Down below is the feedback and the essay respectively. 
Thank you very much in advance!

FEEDBACK:
Hello Adriana, you seem to have some understanding of the nature of the writing task as you have mentioned three faulty assumptions in the author's argument. However, your discussion of the same needs to focus more on the bad reasoning instead of the issue. Also, instead of referring back to your discussion of the faulty assumptions, you are required to specify your suggestions to improve the given argument separately. All the best!

Here's some additional feedback: 
• Each paragraph should focus on one idea.

ESSAY & PROMPT:
The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:
“Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight."

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 for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The argument states that we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight because manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Stated like that, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there's no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the series of unmanned space probes and satellites was a sample big enough to be successful in a long term period. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, a series of 5 space probes and satellites 100% successful doesn't mean that the next 1.000 will be as well. The argument could have been much clearer if it mentioned the amount of series released into space and the percentage of success that they achieved.

Second, the argument claims that the unmanned space flight gathered a great deal of useful information. This is, again, a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails does not demonstrate any correlation between the manned and unmanned space flight information. To illustrate, manned space flight could gather information about the texture of the land on a determined planet by touching it, and the probes and satellites could gather information such as temperature and air humidity by other devices. Unmanned space flight gathered useful information, but it doesn't mean that the manned type didn't gather information equally useful. If the argument had provided the type of information gathered by each type of space flight, then it would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, it is said that unmanned space flight gathers information without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Are the costs and risks less on unmanned space flight? It is just said that the costs and risks are not the same associated with manned space flight, which doesn't mean that they are lower in comparison. For example, the manufacturing of space probes and satellites is a cost that is not noticeable on manned space flight. Moreover, there could still be risks of sending devices to space even if they are not associated with the risks of sending men and women to space. Without the answer to the cited question one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinker than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had provided all the relevant facts named on this essay.Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and opened to debate.

[CFBrown]

I think the reviewers of your essay gave you a 2 because you didn't properly complete the task. Instead of examining the unstated or stated assumptions, your essay seems more like you're analyzing the issue.

 

I purchased the eBook study guide for the GRE and it gives logic behind the scoring of analytical writing essays. For the Analyze the Argument essay, your reviewers likely gave you a 2 based on one or more of the following characteristics:

• does not present an examination based on logical analysis, but may instead present the writer's own views on the subject
• does not follow the directions for the assigned task
• does not develop ideas, or is poorly organized and illogical
• provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support for its main points
• has serious problems in language and sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning
• contains serious errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning

Let me know if this helps.

Edited February 11, 2015 by CFBrown

[adrianaferreira]

Hi CFBrown, thank you for replying!

 

I bought the official guide for the GRE provided by ETS, is it the same you have? On the sample 6.0 Issue essay, that is provided on this book, the author has the same essay structure as mine and the tasks are the same as well! This is the score 6 response provided on the book and its prompt:

 

In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities. 

 

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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

 

While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to

riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case

for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents

would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and

thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.

 

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water

sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the

survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or

would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward

river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking

only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long,

with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is

fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the

author’s argument.

 

Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming,

boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and

smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete

connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not

effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have

been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two

individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the

author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of

residents why they do not currently use the river.

 

Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality

of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result

in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems

which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality

and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be

remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the

water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which

emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something

likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact

upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or

not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river

usage.

 

A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased

tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better

overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to

invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is

not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

I don't understand what I did different from this level 6 response to get graded with a 2-point essay. 

=(((

The only difference I can see is the word count, this essay has 540 words and mine has 450. I also used some abbreviation, but that's all. Can you tell any more differences from the structure itself?

 

Thanks!

Edited February 11, 2015 by adrianaferreira

[TakeruK]

I don't mean this in a mean way but I am just trying to help you see differences between your essay and the sample essay. I'll just compare your first argument paragraph. 

 

First, the argument readily assumes that the series of unmanned space probes and satellites was a sample big enough to be successful in a long term period. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, a series of 5 space probes and satellites 100% successful doesn't mean that the next 1.000 will be as well. The argument could have been much clearer if it mentioned the amount of series released into space and the percentage of success that they achieved.

 

When I read this paragraph, I see the same point being made 3 times. That is, you are only stating that the author assumes that the series of unmanned space probes/satellites were big enough to draw meaningful conclusions, but you don't know this for sure. I don't think your example extends your argument, it just repeats it. And the final sentence does add a little information (i.e. what would be needed to draw meaningful conclusions) but I feel it is written in an awkward way. 

 

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water

sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the

survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or

would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward

river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking

only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long,

with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is

fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the

author’s argument.

 

On the other hand, this paragraph starts with the main argument: that the survey's scope and validity is questionable. They give 3 different reasons why the survey's scope and validity is questionable. Then they finish with a restatement of the paragraph's thesis and reinforces the 3 different reasons (representative, valid, reliable).

 

Overall, I think you can improve your first paragraph by stating your arguments more clearly and coherently. For example, in your third sentence, instead of making a point, you are just providing an example. I think this paragraph can be strengthened if you replace that example with an argument that it is dangerous to extrapolate long term trends from only a few recent successes. 

 

Finally, I think there are also some sentence structure and grammar issues that make your sentences a little awkward, which makes it harder to understand your argument. This can be a contributing factor to why your score is lower. Good luck!

[CFBrown]

I don't mean this in a mean way but I am just trying to help you see differences between your essay and the sample essay. I'll just compare your first argument paragraph. 

 

 

When I read this paragraph, I see the same point being made 3 times. That is, you are only stating that the author assumes that the series of unmanned space probes/satellites were big enough to draw meaningful conclusions, but you don't know this for sure. I don't think your example extends your argument, it just repeats it. And the final sentence does add a little information (i.e. what would be needed to draw meaningful conclusions) but I feel it is written in an awkward way. 

 

 

On the other hand, this paragraph starts with the main argument: that the survey's scope and validity is questionable. They give 3 different reasons why the survey's scope and validity is questionable. Then they finish with a restatement of the paragraph's thesis and reinforces the 3 different reasons (representative, valid, reliable).

 

Overall, I think you can improve your first paragraph by stating your arguments more clearly and coherently. For example, in your third sentence, instead of making a point, you are just providing an example. I think this paragraph can be strengthened if you replace that example with an argument that it is dangerous to extrapolate long term trends from only a few recent successes. 

 

Finally, I think there are also some sentence structure and grammar issues that make your sentences a little awkward, which makes it harder to understand your argument. This can be a contributing factor to why your score is lower. Good luck!

 

TakeruK sums it up perfectly!

[adrianaferreira]

Thank you TakeruK and CFBrown again!

 

I see your points, although I think the nature of my argument's assumptions didn't allow me to expand my examples as much as the assumptions on the Mason City's argument. But I understand your critiques and I am going to try to absorb it, thanks a lot!

 

Nevertheless, below is a score 2 response provided by ETS official guide. All paragraphs are way less developed than mine, the word count must be almost half or even less, full of grammar errors and other logical mistakes. I think it is way worse than mine to get the same score, for example. I understand mine is not a 6 response, I'm not a native speaker and it is very hard to get passed the language barrier, but I think I deserved a 4 which is what I need.

 

Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback! You weren't mean or anything it's always good to hear constructive critiques.

 

This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in it which is not

logical.

First, this statement mentions raking water sports as their favorite recreational

activities at the first sentence. However, it seems to have a ralation between the first

sentence and the setence which mentions that increase the quality of the river’s water

and the river’s smell. This is a wrong cause and result to solve the problem.

Second, as a reponse to the complaints from residents, the state plan to clean up the

river. As a result, the state expects that water sports will increase. When you look at

two sentences, the result is not appropriate for the cause.

Third, the last statement is the conclusion. However, even though residents rank

water sports, the city government might devote the budget to another issue. This

statement is also a wrong cause and result.

In summary, the statement is not logical because there are some errors in it. The

supporting setences are not strong enough to support this issue.

[TakeruK]

I am not a ETS grader so I have no idea if your essay merits a 2, or a 3, or a 4. I am only able to compare the two samples you suggested! Sorry that I can't help with that.

 

You mentioned that the nature of your argument's assumption does not allow for as much of an in-depth analysis as the Mason City essay. I completely agree with that. I think your essay is not targeting the right assumptions because you are trying too hard to make it match the Mason City argument. For a stronger essay, you should reconsider the space mission arguments and maybe you can find other assumptions to target (pick assumptions where you can have 2 or 3 reasons to refute that assumption).

[adrianaferreira]

I just took the practical test again, and copied the same essay to the response field. I added 1 paragraph before the conclusion and restated information that could have been given for the argument to be strengthened (which I had already done implicitly on my body paragraphs), although it is not exactly a given task on the prompt itself.

 

I got evaluated again and they gave me a 5 score, although I kept my original 5 paragraphs intact. So maybe I'll add that up to my next essays instead of just implicitly mentioning it on my body paragraphs. But 5 from a 2 with only 1 paragraph different? I think this difference is humongous for such minimal changes. Maybe it was a different person that rated it, who knows.

 

I think this topic can be closed, I appreciate a lot your participation on it. I posted on 3 different forums and you guys were the only ones that responded!

 

Here's the latest feedback I got, in case anyone is interested:

 

Argument Essay

Unmanned Space Flight - 5

Hi! You presented a competent essay by discussing the inherent flaws in the statement. You also suggested ways to strengthen the argument, which is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, discussing the faulty reasoning of the argument in greater detail will merit you a higher score. Make sure that you address the conclusion of the argument and analyze it as well. Is it an economically viable option to invest all resources in unmanned space flights? You could show more skill with the use of language. Good luck!

Here's some additional feedback: 
• State the flaws in the argument more clearly.
• Good overall organization.

[MathCat]

Honestly, I don't think your original essay was a 2. But it's not a 5 to me either - probably in the 3 - 4 range, but of course I am not an ETS grader. My advice would be to be more verbose - explicitly explain everything. It does seem that longer essays are generally scored higher. If you go into a few points in depth, you don't need to come up with quite as many! My friend gave me this advice, and I think my essays greatly improved as a result. I ended up scoring a 5.0. I would also reduce the rhetorical questions. You can explain the flawed assumptions and how the argument relies on it better if you just state it explicitly: the argument assumes this, and uses it to reach that conclusion, but it is flawed in this way.

 

For example, I think "Are the costs and risks less on unmanned space flight? It is just said that the costs and risks are not the same associated with manned space flight, which doesn't mean that they are lower in comparison." could be better expressed as "The argument implicitly assumes that the costs and risks of unmanned space flight are less than those of manned space flight. However, this is not clearly established in the argument, and thus does not support the conclusion." or something like that. It seems clearer that way, to me. I do think that this is one of the harder essay prompts to say much about, but the one I got on the real exam was even worse (for me).

[adrianaferreira]

Hi MathCat!

 

Yeah, I struggled to find logical fallacies on this argument as well and those are the ones I could come up with. I usually find a lot of them and can manage to choose with which I want to work with, but I think the timing of the task took its toll on this matter.

 

Thank you for the suggestion on the rhetorical questions though. About the verbose advice, I swear I try to type a lot but I'm always afraid of getting too wordy and boring in the end. 

 

Thanks a lot!

 

PS: Just for curiosity, what was your exam's prompt? So I can prepare myself in advance for that one hahaha

Edited February 12, 2015 by adrianaferreira

[CFBrown]

 

I just took the practical test again, and copied the same essay to the response field. I added 1 paragraph before the conclusion and restated information that could have been given for the argument to be strengthened (which I had already done implicitly on my body paragraphs), although it is not exactly a given task on the prompt itself.

 

I got evaluated again and they gave me a 5 score, although I kept my original 5 paragraphs intact. So maybe I'll add that up to my next essays instead of just implicitly mentioning it on my body paragraphs. But 5 from a 2 with only 1 paragraph different? I think this difference is humongous for such minimal changes. Maybe it was a different person that rated it, who knows.

 

I think this topic can be closed, I appreciate a lot your participation on it. I posted on 3 different forums and you guys were the only ones that responded!

 

Here's the latest feedback I got, in case anyone is interested:

 

Argument Essay

Unmanned Space Flight - 5

Hi! You presented a competent essay by discussing the inherent flaws in the statement. You also suggested ways to strengthen the argument, which is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, discussing the faulty reasoning of the argument in greater detail will merit you a higher score. Make sure that you address the conclusion of the argument and analyze it as well. Is it an economically viable option to invest all resources in unmanned space flights? You could show more skill with the use of language. Good luck!

Here's some additional feedback: 

• State the flaws in the argument more clearly.

• Good overall organization.

 

 

Congrats! Way to improve!

[TakeruK]

You can actually see a list of all possible essay prompts on the ETS website here: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/(scroll down to the links for the "Topic Pools"). So, in theory, you can prepare for every potential question you will get. But there is a lot of them!

[adrianaferreira]

Congrats! Way to improve!

Thank you, you guys helped a lot!

 

You can actually see a list of all possible essay prompts on the ETS website here: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/(scroll down to the links for the "Topic Pools"). So, in theory, you can prepare for every potential question you will get. But there is a lot of them!

Yeah I know, I was taking a look at the Issue tasks because they are the most difficult to me. But if he got a problem with one of the Analytical prompts, I thought I could take a special look at it!

Edited February 12, 2015 by adrianaferreira

[hussain shaikh]

kindly score this argument essay (GRE)

 

 

The following appeared in a health magazine.

 

"The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey

 show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago.

 Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol.

 This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the most healthy citizens regularly eat."

 

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument 

and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

 

The author's argument that the people of Forsythe have adopted  more healthful lifestyles compared to ten 

years before is flawed. In the argument, the author not only draws conclusion based on vague and ambiguous terms

but also uses data from limited sample to make sweeping generalization about an entire population. Furthermore, the

author makes the mistake of linking the increased sale of food products containing kiran to a more healthful lifestyle.

 

To begin, the conclusion is based on the fact that the recent survey depicting the citizens of Forsythe now conform 

more to government nutritional recommendation compared to ten years before is true representative of the entire population.

Although the recent survey might not represent the entire population of Forsythe. Inorder to make the argument strong and 

conclusive the author needs to provide the number of people which participated in the recent survey and what number of 

people responsed in the observing the governmental nutritional recommendation. If proper statistics are provided regarding 

the recent survey, this would surely made the author's argument more strong and conclusive. Since the author doesnot provide 

any information regarding the number of people who participated in the recent survey, it is impossible to conclude that

the citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyle.

 

Secondly, the conclusion is based on some vague and ambiguous terms like more, most and reduces. Here the author 

assumes that more means significantly more, most means large number of people and reduces means a large reduction.

But these terms can have many different interpretations. For example the author has cited the example of food products

 containing kiran, a substance that reduces cholesterol. The word reduce used here needs to be define, it is possible that the kiran 

might reduce the cholesterol by only 1 percent than the increase sale of food product containg kiran can make the author's

 argument unwarranted. The argument can be made strong if the author define these terms.If proper definition of these vague terms are provided, 

this would certainly made the author's more plausible. Since the author doesnot provide any information regarding these ambiguous terms,it is

 impossible to conclude that the citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyle.

 

Thirdly, the conclusion is based on the trend of increase sale of food products containing kiran which means more people of 

Forsythe are leading a more healthful lifestyle. The evidence provided for kiran is that it reduces cholesterol therefore it is more 

healthier thing to consume. But food product containing kiran can have negative implications on different organs of human being.

Therefore the author needs to consider and discuss the impact of kiran on different body organs. Therefore the argument can be made strong 

if a more detailed biological analysis of food containing kiran is done and presented in the argument. And by looking at such detailed 

biological analysis we can conclude really whether kiran is beneficial for health or not. Since the author doesnot provide any information 

regarding the biological analysis of kiran, it is impossible to conclude that more consumption of kiran means more healthful lifestyle.

 

The argument can be strengthened if the author provided information regarding the number of people which participated in the

recent survey. The argument could further be strengthened if the author were to define key terms as well as define relation between 

kiran and healthful lifestyle. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.