Can someone please help score my GRE essays?!

[faithpeddie]

I am linking two essays, one issue and one argument... if you have any feedback on what score I might get from your prior experience, can you please reply! Thank you :-)

-Faith

 

Issue Essays

Argument Essays

[anonymous052709]

  Ill score yours if you score mine! I will send you responses tomorrow morning after I print them and look at the rubric. My email is greenav@bc.edu if you want to contact me faster.

ESSAY 1

     People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are not necessarily poor decision makers, but rather they are inauthentic decision analyzers. I agree that there is an issue with this type of behavior, but the issue is not one of being a good or bad decision maker. One should instead focus on the fact that these types of people are either ignorant or in denial of their true motivations for making said decisions, and for this reason, it may appear that they are poor decision makers. It may appear this way because these types of people who have trouble analyzing their past decisions are much more likely to have a hard time learning from those decisions, and thereby repeating poor decision patterns more often.
     It is important to note the difference between a pre-decision logical deduction and a post-decision rationalization. A post-decision rationalization is what is being performed by the sort of people being discussed. the crucial difference between a rationalization and a logical deduction is that the pattern of logical deduction is equal to the decision making process, while the rationalization is a post-decision activity, and therefore does not alter the decision making process in any way. The fallacy in the aforementioned claim is just this - the fact that one cannot argue that a decision made based on emotion was actually made based on logic by positing the logic that could have been used to make that decision. 
    I will argue that it is possible for the logic one uses to rationalize a decision and the logic one could have used to deduce the decision initially, may actually be the same logical steps, using the same premises and logical operators. Had the claim read, "People who make decisions based on emotion and could have made better decisions based on logic are poor decision makers" it would be more sensible, because the pre-decision deductive logic has a value as far as being good or bad for the decision (valid or invalid in terms of argument). The claim at stake has an essential problem - that being the implication that a post-decision justification (what I term rationalization), somehow affects the quality of the decision process that preceded it. This is simply anachronistic and temporally impossible.
     I also want to point out that this claim does not posit a value difference between making decisions based on emotion, and making decisions based on logic. For a time when it is advisable to make an emotional decision, one should feel good about doing so, or bad about not doing so. The introduction of post-decision logic is irrelevant to this type of decision. Alternatively, in a time when it is not advisable to make an emotional decision, and one should instead make a logical decision, one who did so should feel accomplished, and one who did not do so should not feel they are a good decision maker, even if they were lucky and chose the right outcome based on emotion. 
     In order to learn from mistakes, one must use true information about the situation they are analyzing. This means they are to use true information and valid logic to arrive at a true conclusion. The essential flaw in the analyzed claim is that the decision makers are not using true information about what motivated their decision to consider it after the decision is made. Because of this, they will never be authentic with themselves about the real motivations for their decisions, and in doing so will never analyze the situation which actually occurred. Because of this, learning from their mistakes will prove very difficult.

 

 

ESSAY 2

     In order to determine whether the nation of Taugus- in doing everything it can to promote a new type of millet - will repair the people's vitamin A deficiency, several questions must be answered. First, it must be determined whether or not the new strain of millet has the same desired qualities of the old strains of millet which have been essential to the people of Taugus. Second, it remains to be seen whether the government of Taugus, being an impoverished nation, has the proper funds to execute this operation. Third, the health-related and environmental repercussions of the new variety must be evaluated in order to determine the effects of this proposition. 
     First of all, in order to give truth to the claim that "since millet is already a staple food in Taugus, people will readily adopt the new variety," it must be established that the new millet and old millet have the same qualities that are desired for by the people of Taugus. For example, it would be valuable to know what types of foods are made from millet, and whether the new millet lends itself to these textures, tastes, preparation methods, and recipes. If it does not, this threatens the truth value of the argument. Also, it would be helpful to have answered whether the new millet stores in a way that allows the people of Taugus to consume it just as readily as the old type of millet. In order for the new millet to function well in repairing the Vitamin A deficiency, it must be consumed just as much as the old millet and by as many people. If we were able to establish that the millet also stores and transports just as well or better than the old millet, we can agree with this claim. 
     Second, the financial situation of the country of Taugus must be analyzed to discover if the cost of the new millet could be deferred from the farmers to a more financially robust group, such as the sector of the government providing subsidies. If we were to find that the money was not available for these subsidies, then we would have to conclude that the plan to grow and establish this new Vitamin A rich form of millet would fail before it even reached the people, since the seeds are so expensive. If we can establish that the government can afford such and endeavor, then we can ground the claim that subsidies would offset the cost of the new variety. 
     Third, in order to predict whether this proposition would achieve the projected results, it must be researched whether the new variety of millet adversely affects the health of people or the environment. For example, if the new millet were to bring in an invasive pest that destroyed the next richest source of Vitamin A in the country, then we could conclude that the new Vitamin A rich millet has not served its purpose well, and has partially or entirely cancelled out its own intended effects. In addition, if the new millet was the first GMO product to be introduced to Taugus, it is possible that the health of other crops, animals, and people could be adversely affected in unpredictable ways. Perhaps though the people gain Vitamin A, the new millet causes new health concerns and thereby renders itself a more harmful than helpful introduction to the country. 
     In conclusion, there is hope that if these questions are answered in positive ways, that the new millet will have a good effect on the country of Taugus, and indeed the government should do everything it can to promote this new crop. However, we cannot successfully make this claim until several essential questions are answered, and we have the information to do so responsibly.

 0

 

I am going to use this rubric for yours: http://magoosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Magoosh-Essay-Rubric-for-the-GRE-GMAT.pdf

[anonymous052709]

@faithpeddie

 

Here is what I scored your essays at:

Issue Essay 1: 

Quality of Ideas: 3 (I gave this score because you did not clearly take a position on the argument. At first I thought you agreed, and the last sentence made it seem as if you did not. It was unclear, and it was also unclear exactly how you intended the examples to support your argument.

Organization: 3.5 (The essay had a progression of ideas, but not clear transitions.)

Writing Style: 3 (The style was a bit wordy and at times unclear.)

Grammar and Usage: 4 (You seem to have a good command of grammar, but not much strong vocabulary or advanced usage. It seemed like you may have felt pressed for time?)

Total: 3.375 , overall score rounds to 3.5

 

Issue Essay 2: 

Quality of Ideas: 3 (The ideas were there but they were jumbled and not connected to form an argument. State clearly as you can what exactly your argument is and how you are proving it.)

Organization: 3 (Not clearly organized as an argument with no clear thesis.)

Writing Style: 3 (your wordiness is consistent in your writing, maybe try to brainstorm first and make sure your ideas are clear and concise.)

Grammar and Usage: 4 (Your grammar is fine, but again, limited in variety.)

Total: 3.25, rounds up to 3.5

 

I will grade the rest later when I have time!