Can you please grade these two GRE AWA essays?

[Spintix]

Just wondering how bad I did. I timed myself for 30 minutes each. Keep in mind that I do not write well under a time constraint and did not have time to reread these essays. thank you for your time.

 

Essay 1:

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

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.

 

It is hard to think of mankind without the use of technology. Ever since humans have walked the earth they have relied on technology in order to survive and thrive in a variety of niches worldwide. In fact, if it were not for technology, humanity would not be the dominant life form on this planet. However, technology may also exceed lengths to which people become disconnected from the idea of coping without it. Therefore, the reliance of humanity on technology may impose a problem on the species ability to think for themselves.

            One of the major technological contributions to mankinds deterioration to think for themselves is the creation of the internet. The internet has allowed people to easily access various forms of information based on the experiments and knowledge of other people. Therefore, the need for one to conduct experiments in order to seek answers has become a less likely strategy to solve problems.

            Besides reliance on the internet, humans have also become oblivious to their reliance on everyday household items that allow the to thrive in a civilized society. Items such as refrigerators, heaters, and easy access to fire are often taken for granted in most modern civilizations. Therefore, if a human that finds reliance on this technology were dropped into a world without it they would likely have a hard time thinking for themselves in order to find ways to preserve food, keep warm, and find ways of making fire. Without these basic necessities for survival one would likely perish without them in an uncivilized world.

            Overall, it is without a doubt that humans rely on technology in order to both problem solve and thrive. After all, technology has allowed us to become the most advanced and dominant species on the planet. However, the reliance we have on technology could prove disasterous if we were suddenly thrown into a world without it. This is because our reliance on technology has greatly deteriorated our coping skills and ability to solve problems without it. 

 

Essay 2:

The government in Littleville plans to build a large mall in a newly constructed zone just outside the city. Littleville hopes to attract many wealthy clients who it believes will shop at the Littleville Mall’s many planned boutique stores. Ten years ago bigsburgh, a city in the same province, built an upscale mall in its fashionable downtown district. The mall was an instant success, so Littleville Mall can expect a similar return on revenue in the first year of its opening.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, ou may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples weaken the conclusion.

You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion

 

It would not be smart of the government of Littleville to expect a newly built mall to be as successful in revenue as a mall built in the nearby city of Bigsburgh. This is because Littleville may not have as large of a wealthy population as Bigsburgh did when they built a mall in their city. There is also a large time gap of 10 years in which the malls would be built which could prove to skew success. However, Littleville could have a similar return in revenue as the mall built in Bigsburgh if the previous statements prove to have little effect on its success.

            Littleville may have a completely different population of wealthy people than Bigsburgh. If the wealthy population of Bigsburgh was a lot smaller than that of Littleville then Littleville could expect little similarity in revenue produced from the construction of a mall near it’s city. Even if Littleville did have many wealthy people in its city, it could have a much smaller overall population in comparison to Bigsburgh. This would also yield a smaller revenue for a mall built in Littleville than the one built in Bigsburgh.

            Despite population difference between the two cities, there is also a large time gap in the building of each mall if the construction of the one in Littleville were to take place. A 10 year time gap could yield completely different revenues between the two malls if the economy was much better when Bigsburghs mall flourished. However, if the economy was worse when Bigsburghs mall flourished, then building a mall in Littleville could bring in a similar revenue to that of Bigsburgh mall 10 years prior if the economy had become better since then.

            Overall, the government of Littleville should not completely expect a newly built mall near its city to be as successful as the one built in Bisburgh 10 years ago. This is because the two cities may have completely different size populations and completely different ratios in wealthy to poor citizens. Also, the economy could have been greatly altered from the time period of which the BItsburgh mall flourished and the present. However, it should not be completely expected that the economy if Bisburgh 10 years ago was not the same as the current economy in Littleville. Therefore, Littleville may prove to be just as successful and Bisburgh by building a mall outside their city. 

[MonstersU-Terp]

 

Essay 1:

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

 

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.

 

It is hard to think of mankind without the use of technology. Ever since humans have walked the earth they have relied on technology in order to survive and thrive in a variety of niches worldwide. In fact, if it were not for technology, humanity would not be the dominant life form on this planet. Your first three introductory sentences are all about how technology is good and suddenly you switch to saying it's bad and the rest of your essay takes the stance that technology is detrimental. I would recommend you start with a strong opening statement that immediately introduces your POV. However, technology may also exceed lengths to which people become disconnected from the idea of coping without it. This sentence is worded awkwardly and doesn't really make sense. A re-word might be: Technology is so pervasive in our society that people may be unable to imagine coping without it. Therefore, the reliance of humanity on technology may impose a problem on the species ability to think for themselves.

 

            One of the major technological contributions to mankinds mankind's deterioration to think for themselves is the creation of the internet. The internet has allowed people to easily access various forms of information based on the experiments and knowledge of other people. Therefore, the need for one to conduct experiments in order to seek answers has become a less likely strategy to solve problems. This is a very interesting and valid perspective. You could strengthen your idea even more by including an example. "For example, a gardening amateur who is interested in knowing what kinds of liquid best promote plant growth might look up this information online rather than performing an experiment herself using water, coffee, and juice."

 

            Besides reliance on the internet, humans have also become oblivious to their reliance on everyday household items that allow the them to thrive in a civilized society. Items such as refrigerators, heaters, and easy access to fire are often taken for granted in most modern civilizations. Therefore, if a human that finds reliance on this technology were dropped into a world without it they would likely have a hard time thinking for themselves in order to find ways to preserve food, keep warm, and find ways of making fire. Without these basic necessities for survival one would likely perish without them in an uncivilized world. This perspective is much weaker than the one in your previous paragraph. Why should a person care about how they would survive on an alien planet without technology? It is better to stick to real-life examples rather that strange sci-fi theories. I think you could better navigate your idea by focusing on skills humans are losing that have a real potential of causing problems. Most people don't need to know how to survive in the wild. Most people however do need to know essential life skills (how to cook, how to clean, how to study, how to make friends, etc.) How does technology affect these skills? You could talk about how social media reduces the ability of people to form interpersonal connections. You also used the word reliance three times so it might be good to think of synonyms as you're writing  

 

            Overall, it is without a doubt that humans rely on technology in order to both problem solve and thrive. After all, technology has allowed us to become the most advanced and dominant species on the planet. However, the reliance we have on technology could prove disasterous if we were suddenly thrown into a world without it. This is because our reliance on technology has greatly deteriorated our coping skills and ability to solve problems without it. 

 

Oh hey! This was my essay question when I took the GRE in October 2015. One thing that struck me though out the essay is your tendency to use the passive voice rather than the active voice. Passive voice is OK sometimes but it's not generally accepted in writing unless it's for a newspaper or journal. I would practice re-wording your sentences to the active voice.

 

Hope my comments helped

 

 

[Neuro PolarBear]

Essay 2:

The government in Littleville plans to build a large mall in a newly constructed zone just outside the city. Littleville hopes to attract many wealthy clients who it believes will shop at the Littleville Mall’s many planned boutique stores. Ten years ago bigsburgh, a city in the same province, built an upscale mall in its fashionable downtown district. The mall was an instant success, so Littleville Mall can expect a similar return on revenue in the first year of its opening.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples weaken the conclusion.

You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion

Hi Spintix. I'd take a good look at the prompt again since it very clearly spells out what to do in your response. The prompt presents one argument and you are first supposed to identify the assumptions underlying this argument, and then show how these assumptions are questionable / illogical / unreasonable so that the conclusion of the argument (Littleville Mall can expect a similar return on revenue in the first year) is unsound. Then, it tells you to suggest what sort of evidence would tighten or refute this argument.

I think there's two ways you can approach the structure of your response. First, you can list all the silly assumptions the argument makes, and loosely group them into two categories / focus on two key assumptions in your first two body paragraphs. Then, you can have a 3rd body paragraph on the evidence you still need / how to refine the argument. Or, for each assumption you can list what the argument assumed, why this assumption doesn't necessarily fit with their conclusion, and what evidence is actually need.

It would not be smart of the government of Littleville to expect a newly built mall to be as successful in revenue as a mall built in the nearby city of Bigsburgh. Evaluate the argument, not the conclusion. "The government of Littleville concludes/assumptions...However, this is based on assumption 1, 2, etc. In doing so, they disregard 1, 2, etc. Here's what evidence they actually need.This is because Littleville may not have as large of a wealthy population as Bigsburgh did when they built a mall in their city. There is also a large time gap of 10 years in which the malls would be built which could prove to skew success. However, Littleville could have a similar return in revenue as the mall built in Bigsburgh if the previous statements prove to have little effect on its success. This last sentence sounds very wishy-washy to me! Focus on the argument and the underlying assumptions, not what could theoretically happen.

 

            Littleville may have a completely different population of wealthy people than Bigsburgh. Your topic sentence for the paragraph, rather than the last sentence of it, needs to explain why this is relevant to the argument. Your topic sentence should explain the goal of the mall (to attract wealthy people) and then the assumption (bigsburgh did, so Littleville will). Then you can say why that's a bad assumption (less wealthy people, they already have a mall to shop at, smaller population, etc. so the conclusion (similar returns in the first year) is unfounded What data is needed? Do these wealthy clients want a new mall? Why was bigsbugh an instant success (more likely, if it was the first mall and an instant success, you probably won't have the same successes at a second mall if it's nearby) If the wealthy population of Bigsburgh was a lot smaller than that of Littleville then Littleville could expect little similarity in revenue produced from the construction of a mall near it’s city. Even if Littleville did have many wealthy people in its city, it could have a much smaller overall population in comparison to Bigsburgh. This would also yield a smaller revenue for a mall built in Littleville than the one built in Bigsburgh.

 

            Despite population difference between the two cities, there is also a large time gap in the building of each mall if the construction of the one in Littleville were to take place. Again the topic sentence needs to introduce why this is relevant. Your argument is that you can't extrapolate from bigsbugh success since it was 10 years ago. That's a perfectly fine argument you need to make, but you need to explicitly reiterate that the argument you're evaluating makes the assumption that littleville will ahve the same success that bisbugh did 10 years ago when that's such a long time ago. What sort of data is needed? Again, explicitly state this (is there interest for a new mall? has bigsburgh been profitable the entire time? Is the new location outside the city a good one?) They assumed this, here's what they didn't consider and why that makes their conclusion illogical, here's what other information is needed A 10 year time gap could yield completely different revenues between the two malls if the economy was much better when Bigsburghs mall flourished. However, if the economy was worse when Bigsburghs mall flourished, then building a mall in Littleville could bring in a similar revenue to that of Bigsburgh mall 10 years prior if the economy had become better since then. Don't go through all the different hypothetical scenarios. Just say what isn't taken into consideration (the state of the economy 10 years ago), why this affects the argument (profits at mall depend on the economy), and what info is needed now (what's the current state of the economy / are people interested in a new mall / data supporting you'd expect similar profits, etc.)

(you should probably have another body paragraph here)

            Overall, the government of Littleville should not completely expect a newly built mall near its city to be as successful as the one built in Bisburgh 10 years ago. This is because the two cities may have completely different size populations and completely different ratios in wealthy to poor citizens. Huh? You don't know either of these things. Again, evaluate the argument. Because you don't know if they do, that's exactly what evidence is needed! Don't assume anything that isn't explicitly stated in the argument you're supposed to evaluate Also, the economy could have been greatly altered from the time period of which the BItsburgh mall flourished and the present. However, it should not be completely expected that the economy if Bisburgh 10 years ago was not the same as the current economy in Littleville. Therefore, Littleville may prove to be just as successful and Bisburgh by building a mall outside their city. This paragraph sounds way too much like your intro. Don't waste time summarizing or theorizing about possible scenarios. Focus focus focus on the argument and what it takes into consideration / neglects and why what it neglects is so important. The conclusion could be a good part to maybe continue answering the last bit of the prompt (what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion).

Your response should be about how you cannot accept the conclusion that they give you because the reasoning / argument is flawed. I wouldn't hypothesize about what would or could happen, but instead focus on what argument was actually made, why you cannot make this argument given the data, the logical assumptions the original argument meant, how these assumptions make unqualified leaps, and, finally, what data are actually needed / how the argument should be refined.

For this essay, I'd go back over the prompt, outline a response, and then rewrite your essay in about 30 minutes. I wouldn't be so strict on time at first, but with an outline of what you know you want to say, see how much of that you can actually cover. A little outlining goes a long way. In your intro and each paragraph, try to be more explicit about how you are answering the prompt. This shouldn't only become obvious in the last sentence of each paragraph. Tie everything back to the assumptions of the original argument.

Hope this helps! Luckily, the prompts for every argument essay are about the same, so once you get the hang of it, it should start to seem very familiar (they present a flawed argument, you discuss why it's flawed and how to improve it by getting additional evidence that will answer the original argument's shaky assumptions).