Please read and grade: GRE AWA Argument Task... THANKS!

[mbmedina]

TASK:

SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

RESPONSE:

While the claim makes a mediocre attempt of proving that Corporateville is the best location for its headquarters, the presumptions of the increase in homeowners rsiding in Corporateville; the conclusion that its employees do not like living in an urban area, thus they would prefer to live in Corporateville; and the cost of living in Corpoateville is cheaper than its original location in Middlesburg have gaps in each of its points.

The assumption that the high amount of homeowners in Corporateville makes the area "superior" does not have much to substantiate itself. A question that arises with this piece of information is the background of the area itself, in terms of living quality. While there may be a high amount of homeowners in the area, there may be other reasons why these people would choose to reside in the area that may not support that Corporateville is superior. An example may be that Corporateville may be located in a deserted area, far from any necessary resources, such as grocery stores, which would then presume this area would be a high cost residency than a "cheap" place to live due to the amount of gasoline, and other costs of living, that would be needed to travel or transport to other locations. Other factors, such as the area's socioeconomic status, has more of an impact that the claim leads on.

Even though the business' employees have surveyed that they would prefer to live in a non-urban area, the claim fails to provide further information as to where the employees would rather live, as there are more than one form of residential areas, such as suburban or rural forms of living. The claims states very little about the employees' alternate and directly assumes that the type of area Corporateville is would be the employees' choice of environment. Complementing the argument made in the previous paragraph, little has been distinguished to support the type of living in Corporateville, other than it is supposedly urban and that there is a high number of homeowners in the area. Technically, by definition, the great presence of homes in a residential area would be more considered to be a suburban type area, and if the company's employees had answered a question in its survey about their alternative form of living, this point may have been proven should their choice be suburban area.

The points made to support that Corporateville is the superior location for its business were made with little to no evidence to substantiate its case. More information about the employee survey or on the socioeconomic status of the area would help the claim be more clearly articulated and present a much stronger argument than it currently presents.