Help with scoring AW essays for the GRE

[Gabriela Nolivos]

Hey guys I really need your help indicating me what score should my essays receive. I need an indicator to see how is mi development in his section. Thanks a lot!

 

Argument task

Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

 

 

The paragraph above is flawed for numerous reasons and some additional information is required if the conclusions of dr Karl are considered valid. The questions which could be elaborated in order to validate the claims of dr Karp vary from contrasting the situation and costumes of tertia island inhabitants and ways of raising their children 20 years ago and the changes made in that area. The scope of the investigation should also be asked and the population included in the method used by dr karp for his study.

A question that could be asked in order to determine the Veracity of dr karp affirmation about dr field investigation is which changes have occurred during the last twenty years in tertia island. Analyzing the situation or drastic changes in lifestyle could explain why nowadays dr karp found a different way of rising children. A lot of events could have happened during that period so to confirm or reject dr karp claim it would be necessary to ask to a representative a mount of tertia inhabitants what have happened during those 20 years and which events could have modified the rearing practices of their infants.

Another questionable point of dr karp conclusions that pretend to invalidate dr field results is the place where the new studies were developed. In the study carried out by the first investigator only the island of tertia is mentioned but in the description of the second study carried out by dr kArp it mentions that he visited and studied the group of island that includes the island of tertia. That difference could certainly invalidate the conclusion of dr karp because the two studies were not carried out to population of the same place because in the second one more islands were studied and it is not determined in the study which percent of the interviews were carried out in the specific island of Tertia so the representation of the results found in this place is imponderable.

The third important question to make is to determine which was the population included in the method developed by dr karp. As the paragraph indicates he visited various islands and tertia was one of them but it doesn't indicate if the research was focused on tertia island or in any other island, it also lacks of precision because it doesn't indicate what percentage of the population was interviewed in order to make conclusions, it neither indicates which were the characteristics of the population interviewed so information about this study is vague and can not be considered reliable. Referring to the first study it doesn't mention the duration of the observation or which variables were considered in the study made. So to prove the affirmation of dr karp it would be necessary to ask him which was the method used to determine the population of study and the sample and how can he correlate it to the population observed by dr field.

Because the argument of dr karp lacks of validity the three questions mentioned above which are related with changes in time, place where the studies were developed and sample considered in the study are necessary and could certainly evaluate the relevance of his affirmation.

 

 

 

[Gabriela Nolivos]

Issue task

Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

People in charge of leading any organization: political, education, business are the image of it for the clients or outsiders. If it is true that any idea suggested by a leader needs time to be developed, the head of any of them should be renewed periodically in order to renewing the image and keep being actual. Alternation is the key for every company in order to keep actual and being reinvented every considerable period of time, so ideas would keep fresh and in case some bad activities are being held there is always chance that new authorities would make the necessary changes.

 

To support the claim it is remarkable that any asociation or organization needs some fresh air or ideas every certain period of time. It is usual for companies to trace the objectives for the next luster so it is a period in which a whole strategy, business plan or campaign can be developed. After vive years of a leadership direction a lot of mistakes or weak points could have been identified by the new group in head so that the company or organization could experience a change and keep being in the focus of attention.

In some cases, specially in politics there are some leaders, it has happened in the case of presidents, ministers, who are terribly ambitious with power and after some years in charge feel so convenient their authority and are eager to perpetuate in power by the means of using in some cases resources provided to them by the authority they possess. An example of the previously mentioned can be described with the situation my country experienced with our last president. Ecuador's former president won elections in 2007 and in my country inmediate reelection was not Allowed by constitution but due to the power the president had in the senate and among the ministers he arranged a way to approve a new constitution in order to continue in functions for more than a period. While he was in his second period he had already had time to control all the country institutions to his party benefit so that even justice was in his hands. As he had so many years in power he could accumulate so many power And influences to control the country according to his convenience and was reluctant to leave his charge even after ten years. 

In the other hand The only reason why i consider that an authority stays for more that five years in power is when a master plan is being developed and counts with the approbation of the integrants of the association, organization or population. It has happened in some countries that a president has proposed a master plan to take the country to a milestone requiring a lot of steps to be reached and following a prepared schedule. In those cases it could be necessary the leadership of a man very committed with the plan and in order to Achieve a certain goal the continuity of his/her could be required and the objectives of the leader should always remain intAct.

To summarize, alternation is necessary in the heAds of organizations, companies, politics in order to keep a clean direction and to have always new ideas and image which could help to keep them versatile to consumers or population which is certainly good.