Critique my essays!

[Radwa]

The task:

Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.

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.

---

My response:

The argument stated in the paragraph relies upon several logic fallacies which makes the author’s argument feeble and prone to criticism. The author is attempting to convey a certain unstated assumption that is drawn from fallacious arguments. Several types of logic fallacies are found in the paragraph, such as causal fallacy, false analogy and survey fallacy. Thus, the following paragraphs shall discuss the fallacies found in the author’s line of reasoning made in his/her concluding assumption.

Firstly, the argument relies upon the assumption that stimulating situations that rhesus monkeys encounter have an effect on their firstborn, which makes them produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, increasing their activity levels of stimulation. This is a classical case of logical fallacy named the causal fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, other situations may cause the same effects in monkeys, such as the death of a friend, the lack of food, or a fight with another monkey. In addition, the paragraph mentions at first that the study is conducted to reveal the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation, which is never shown in the study results. This is conveyed in the author’s phrase, “so do their younger siblings”, which confirms the logical fallacy found in the study, as the same reaction to stimulating situation is seen in the younger siblings. Thus, birth order has no impact whatsoever on their levels on stimulation.

Secondly, the argument relies upon what may amount to a feeble analogy between monkeys and humans. In order for this reasoning to work, the author must assume that all relevant variables must be comparable. Nevertheless, the assumption is not justified. The author fails to consider possible differences between monkeys and humans that might prevent the replication of the same result. Moreover, the author has no sound evidence that the study is conducted on humans. Therefore, the disposition that “Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations” is irrelevant, although it is understood that the author has added it as an unstated assumption that humans’ reaction to the stimulation resembles that of monkeys.

Thirdly, the quality of the study results might be problematic in two respects. First, it is not informed who conducted the study. If the study in instituted by an organization or a company that gains benefit from it, the results might be distorted and unreliable. Second, it is not informed whether the survey responses are confidential. If not, then subjects might provide false information. In either case, the results would be unreliable and provide little support to the argument. The argument only mentions that the study is conducted on only eighteen rhesus monkeys. The author never mentions a specific number of any human subjects in the study, as he/she did for the rhesus monkeys; although the author’s unstated assumption is that humans’ and monkeys’ reactions to stimulating situations are alike. Thus, the argument does not provide sound evidence that the study has used humans as subjects in its research.

In conclusion, the argument could have been stronger, if the author has supported his/her assumption regarding the resemblance between reactions of rhesus monkeys and those of humans to stimulating situations. He/ She could have done that by stating concrete examples, rather than the “encounter with an unfamiliar monkey” or “the return of a parent after an absence”. The author could have also bolstered his/her unstated assumption by giving more proof that the study has been conducted on human subjects, rather than only giving a specific number for only rhesus monkeys. As such, an analogy could have been drawn more correctly. The weaknesses of the argument have caused it to contain an illogical group of premises which led to an implausible assumption made by the author. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by fuzzylogician
Edited title to reflect the fact that this thread now contains multiple essays, merged together from separate threads

[Radwa]

The Task:

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

Write a response in which you 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.

My response:

The author sates that the ability of humans to free-think will gradually decrease as a result of the increasing reliance by human beings on technology for solving their problems.Although the statements contains some reasoning; I actually disagree with it for several reasons, which to be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, the statement presumes that there is some sort of a struggle between humans and technology. We cannot depend on the idea that the world is caught up in an artificial intelligence versus human intelligence game. There is no sound evidence that technology is to control our minds or deprive us of our nature of free thinking. The contrary has actually been proven. Human control on technology is much stronger than the opposite. For instance, it is human who create, use, modify and eliminate technologies, not the other way around. It is humans who are able to manipulate technology and use it for good or for evil. Therefore, technology is merely a tool in humans’ hands that they have to use for solving their problems, which actually requires more thinking by humans in order to know how to use such tool in a way that could make them benefit from it.

Secondly, technology, as a tool, in humans’ hands has assisted in many aspects in our life. Technology is regularly developed by researchers and scientists, each according to their milieu, in order to make use of technological advances in conducting researches, studies, surveys, etc. for example, scientists who participate in developing new discoveries that can be used for military purposes are the ones who are able to control their technologies by the means of thinking. Also, technology is helpful for researchers who now have access to all types of knowledge needed for their researches, whereas in the past, it was an agony for a researcher to find the knowledge they were searching for.

Thirdly, Aristotle has a notorious statement, “humans are rational animals”, which many humans believed for centuries. Thus, the mentioned statement negates human nature. It is not a matter of artificial intelligence versus human intelligence, as the features of both are incomparable. As we are created as thinkers, there is no possibility that technology can erase such trait in humans. Technology needs more thinking to be developed, as well as to be sustained. Therefore, if humans’ ability to think is to deteriorate, technology will no longer exist, rather it will deteriorate too.

Indeed, there is some reasoning in the statement regarding the continuing reliance on technology. For instance, humans became heavily users of technology in their every-day life, using remote controls, electronic devices, mobile phones, cars, electronic networking, for purposes of social communication, conducting business, entertainment and knowledge seeking. It is undeniable that such reliance has its consequences on human lives. However, we can never prove that these actions are able to decrease free thinking in humans, as thinking is a method of expressing free will which is a natural trait of humans and lacking it could cause humans extinction.

 

[Radwa]

The Task:

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.

"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

---

My Response:

The argument stated in the paragraph relies upon several logic fallacies which makes the author’s argument feeble and prone to criticism. The author is attempting to convey a certain unstated assumption that is drawn from fallacious arguments. Several types of logic fallacies are found in the paragraph, such as causal fallacy, false analogy and survey fallacy. Thus, the following paragraphs shall discuss the fallacies found in the author’s line of reasoning made in his/her concluding assumption.

Firstly, the argument relies upon the assumption that stimulating situations that rhesus monkeys encounter have an effect on their firstborn, which makes them produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, increasing their activity levels of stimulation. This is a classical case of logical fallacy named the causal fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, other situations may cause the same effects in monkeys, such as the death of a friend, the lack of food, or a fight with another monkey. In addition, the paragraph mentions at first that the study is conducted to reveal the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation, which is never shown in the study results. This is conveyed in the author’s phrase, “so do their younger siblings”, which confirms the logical fallacy found in the study, as the same reaction to stimulating situation is seen in the younger siblings. Thus, birth order has no impact whatsoever on their levels on stimulation.

Secondly, the argument relies upon what may amount to a feeble analogy between monkeys and humans. In order for this reasoning to work, the author must assume that all relevant variables must be comparable. Nevertheless, the assumption is not justified. The author fails to consider possible differences between monkeys and humans that might prevent the replication of the same result. Moreover, the author has no sound evidence that the study is conducted on humans. Therefore, the disposition that “Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations” is irrelevant, although it is understood that the author has added it as an unstated assumption that humans’ reaction to the stimulation resembles that of monkeys.

Thirdly, the quality of the study results might be problematic in two respects. First, it is not informed who conducted the study. If the study in instituted by an organization or a company that gains benefit from it, the results might be distorted and unreliable. Second, it is not informed whether the survey responses are confidential. If not, then subjects might provide false information. In either case, the results would be unreliable and provide little support to the argument. The argument only mentions that the study is conducted on only eighteen rhesus monkeys. The author never mentions a specific number of any human subjects in the study, as he/she did for the rhesus monkeys; although the author’s unstated assumption is that humans’ and monkeys’ reactions to stimulating situations are alike. Thus, the argument does not provide sound evidence that the study has used humans as subjects in its research.

In conclusion, the argument could have been stronger, if the author has supported his/her assumption regarding the resemblance between reactions of rhesus monkeys and those of humans to stimulating situations. He/ She could have done that by stating concrete examples, rather than the “encounter with an unfamiliar monkey” or “the return of a parent after an absence”. The author could have also bolstered his/her unstated assumption by giving more proof that the study has been conducted on human subjects, rather than only giving a specific number for only rhesus monkeys. As such, an analogy could have been drawn more correctly. The weaknesses of the argument have caused it to contain an illogical group of premises which led to an implausible assumption made by the author. 

 

 

 

[fuzzylogician]

Hi there, please don't create a separate thread for each essay, and please don't post the same essay multiple times. I have merged all the non-duplicate threads into this one. You will notice it appears in the GRE forum, as this request relates to the GRE (and not to writing samples or some other component of the application).