Please review my first GRE essay.

[nitv07]

This is my first attempt on Issue essay. I have not restricted myself to 30 min time frame. I would like to know if this is the proper approach Issue essay or not. 

Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

 

When citizens have voted for a particular government, they have certain expectations from the chosen government. Those expectations are - government shall stick to their words, work for the society in solving problems and address to their needs. So when a government comes to power, they are obliged to solve the problems of the citizens and deliver results to society. And the efforts of the government will only be visible to citizens when they solve immediate problems on a higher priority.

 

Consider a case where a bridge connecting two cities is under urgent requirement for maintenance on the quality of road. It is due to this lack of maintenance that causes traffic jams across the bridge, creating difficulties for daily commuters and even other travelers. If the newly elected government chooses to address this issue and starts working on its maintenance, and completes the work on time, it would instill a sense of trust among the citizens. Their daily commute is now less bumpy and it is even faster. This is one of the ways in which a government can win over its citizens, making the citizens believe that their decision of voting for the government is yielding better results.

 

Moreover spending resources like manpower, money and time on solving anticipated future problems may actually prove detrimental. It is because, such problems are just a prediction. Taking actions on solving them and keeping a blind eye to the immediate problems shows no maturity on behalf of government. For example if there is scarcity of certain type of pulses, which are a part of staple diet in a given region, government should address this issue by importing pulses. This shall decrease the demand to supply ratio and also curb the increasing prices of pulses. Instead of this, if the ruling leaders decide to find out why the supply of pulses has decreased, or they launch few policies to encourage cultivation of pulses, may lead to dissatisfaction among citizens. Such measures , in spite of being correct, should have been taken once the immediate problem of pulse scarcity is under control. 

 

However, just catering to immediate problems is not the full and final solution for an overall prosperity of nation. Government should have an action plan which serves to tackle the anticipated problems in future. Referring back to the bridge example - if the citizens are still complaining of the traffic woes, government should study the current traffic volume and analyze the situation. If it expects that the traffic volume is bound to increase, and that the current bridge is no longer going to suffice to the needs, then the government should plan out for constructing a new bridge in future. It is well known that implementing such new things takes considerable time, so government should efficiently plan and have different phases of implementation.

 

In a nutshell, it a win-win situation for both government and citizens if the government decides to solve immediate problems first because it will foster a sense of belief among the citizens, at the same time citizens will benefit most when there problems are solved.

 

 

[Vince Kotchian GRE Prep]

hi Nitv,

I would probably give this a 3.5.

I would work on your thesis development. You start by saying "the efforts of the government will only be visible to citizens when they solve immediate problems on a higher priority."

This is a little too black-and-white, which gets you into trouble later when you force yourself to argue than planning ahead can be bad (you also don't explain WHY it can be bad in your "pulses" paragraph), and it also gets you into trouble when you contradict your thesis by conceding that solving anticipated problems can be beneficial. I would encourage you, and everyone, to argue something you actually believe, since what we believe is usually more nuanced and intelligent than the artificial advice to "pick a side".

An easy way to do this is to use your first body paragraph to discuss the counterargument and its reasoning, and then the remaining paragraphs to respond to that counterargument. You can give it some credit and then dwell on the parts you disagree with.

Another thing to improve might be how you respond to the statement, which, in essence, is saying GIVEN THE CHOICE, government should opt to solve immediate problems instead of future problems. Merely arguing that it's a good idea to fix a bridge does not tell the reader you understand the statement, since you are not arguing that given the choice, the gov. should fix the bridge INSTEAD of doing some project that may pay off in the future.

Hope that helps,

Best,

Vince