Essay Evaluation

[philip232]

Hi guys! Can I ask for help in evaluating my essay? I am practicing for the GRE. I am pasting both issue and argument essay. Thanks!

Issue Essay

The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general well-being of all its people.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

 When people talk about countries, they often talk about notable people. What they often fail to do is to look at how the state operates in the basic level. How then can people better gauge a nation’s success. Although a nations capacity is often measured by the success of individual people, the general well -being of its population better reflects the greatness of a state.

A population is one of the four essential elements of a nation. Without citizens, there can be no government and sovereignty. This is the primary reason why the greatness of nations rely on how its general population are treated. If its citizens are well-fed and productive, then it shows how nations are capable of providing a safe environment for its population to thrive in. A good example is the Scandinavian countries. These countries are famous not because of individual successes of scientists but of their policies that focuses on its general population. Citizens of these countries have free education health care. Because the state provides all of these benefits, foreigners also wish that they become members of such countries. The level of care that they provide enables sustainable movement within the society that strengthens their economy more.

Relying on the success of individual people can be detrimental for the society by promoting inequality. The problem in relying on individual success is the tendency to just focus on these people as individual entities rather than how their environment has lead them to that success. For example, people tend to focus on the glories of the Roman Empire and Greek civilization because of their contribution to arts, philosophy and science. Focusing on individual contributions have enabled people to be binded on how a certain country has failed its citizens.  Yes, the Greeks have contributed a lot but their form of state has also enabled misogyny and slavery

Achievements of individual people may be important and it should not be neglected. The problem arises when it becomes the only standard on how people view a country. A success of a nation is largely dependent on how it takes cares of its people. When a country provides an enabling environment for people, more scientists and leaders will be able to produce quality work that can represent the state better.

In conclusion, the greatness of a state is measured should not solely be based on individual success. The general population is the foundation of any state. A country that takes care of its people can sustain the country in the future. Furthermore, it also promotes inequality. 

 

Argument Essay 

"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this claim is undermined by a recent report on the Elthyrian economy, which found that since 1999 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, bringing the unemployment rate in Elthyria to its lowest level in decades. Moreover, two-thirds of these newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."

*Downsizing is the process whereby corporations deliberately make themselves smaller, reducing the number of their employees.

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 main problem regarding the rebuttal of the author regarding the problem of corporate downsizing can be traced how the evidence stated does not directly attack the problem. This argument can be supported by three questions.

The first question is about how the growth of employment in 1999 does not undermine the problem of downsizing. Jobs maybe generated but when the companies decide to downsize, these employees will still lose their work. The evidence above did not state the behavior of these companies. It assumes that since 1999 all companies did not downsize. In order for the article to really undermine the attack on downsizing, it has to provide an evidence that these companies are restricted to remove people.

The second question is regarding the usage of employment rate. The evidence only state that the unemployment rate has been to its lowest in decades. The problem is the exact unemployment rate is unknown. The unemployment rate may only change from 70% to 60% or even 69% to 65%. While there has been a decrease, the total unemployment rate may still be significant to show how corporate downsizing has a detrimental effects to workers in that country. In order to improve this argument, author has to prove that the decrease in unemployment rate has been really significant by providing exact numbers or historical trend. Even if exact numbers are shown, the author is still burdened to link how this decline in unemployment is because of corporate downsizing.

The third question is regarding the type of industries. What makes the evidence weak in refuting the argument in the firsts sentence is the fact that the jobs created in 1999 may not be in the same industry. Maybe in 2000, the manufacturing industry became a hit. Those who are affected by the trend in corporate downsizing may not be necessarily in the same industries that the author used for his examples. There may be jobs that are produced but in some industries people are still losing their jobs.In order for the argument to be stronger, the author has to prove that the industries that created new jobs are also the same industries that downsized.

In summary, there are three questions that weakens the evidence stated by the author. First, it failed to rationalize the link of the problem of downsizing and the decrease in umployment. Second, it failed to specify the unemployment rate. Lastly, it failed to specify what kind of industries are booming since 1999.