Can Someone give me a honest review of my GRE issue writing

[Bak977]

The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.

(I have missed the introduction as I was attempting a timed practice for 30 mins)

 

I am against the claim that regulatory laws imposed on citizens, on the amount of waste they generate would help in solving the environmental problems.

 

The primary reason for my argument is that the consumer waste generated, although contributes a great amount to environmental harm, are only a small proportion of the larger factors which causes environmental pollution. The nuclear power industry, despite being the constantly criticized for the intoxication of fertile lands and clear seas, with the nuclear waste they generate, have constantly stood their ground in many Western and Asian countries. The constant proliferation of mass production of automobiles, consumer electronics, food, and apparels are some domains from which we can understand the magnitude to which the production of utilities have increased, and with the giant production of these materials there would be a proportional amount of waste that will be generated from their processing and manufacturing. The waste generated by a consumer, can hence be viewed as the end result of the complex process of mass production. However, this example does not mean that the consumers need not take any social responsibility for proper disposal of their used products. It can also be the case, that the waste generated by large companies strictly abides international disposal standards, and sanctity. So, whether or not, the manufacturing industry takes appropriate responsibility towards the environment, should hold no bearing on the consumer’s responsibilities. If on the other hand, external laws are enacted which forces the consumers to reduce the waste, would trigger a response, which is an act out of forced responsibility than volition. The employees in a company would work with more responsibility, if they were respected, and provided incentives and appreciation for their performance. Similarly If people are, clearly explained about the potential threats of environmental crisis, that results from their consumption, there could be a positive reinforcement of their behavior, by providing them incentives, such as rewards for the cleanest neighborhood in an area, or the cleanest house in the district.

 

Therefore, with these reasons it is possible to conclude that without any regulatory laws, people can be made to understand the environmental dangers and act accordingly.

[papereverwhere]

Personal preference and I have no idea if it would really weigh on a GRE examiner's scoring, but I think it is best to avoid writing the first person in analytical writing. Reason being, unless you are making a ridiculously compelling argument (one of your own thesis, original, and with cited evidence - which are all things which a 30 min GRE writing piece is likely not to be), the use of the first person tends to work against the authoritative tone of one's arguments (style of writing opinion vs. fact). Simple change, if you like, that may lift the perceived (but not necessarily real) quality of your writing.

Whilst you have many great ideas about the topic, I think that the GRE writing tasks - which are incredibly banal truthfully, are about being able to clearly communicate an argument/ideas in a short amount of time. It is difficult to read a piece of writing that is one big paragraph, no matter how interesting the ideas in the paragraph are. If you are not necessarily aiming for a 100.5 on the the writing task, I would suggest returning to the boring high school essay structures you may have been taught. This sort of writing is not necessarily particularly intelligent and rather dull to be honest, but gives the illusion of a clarity of argument. Introduction: sum of arguments, Para 1: argument/examples, Para 2: argument/examples. Para 3: (often counter-argument/repudiation or solution), Conclusion: 'This is what I have said.'. If you have no time, remove Para 2. You might not be able to communicate as many ideas using this formula, but even with a few less ideas it will seem like you have every clue about the issue.

Hope my two cents helps.

Good luck.