http://www.urch.com/forums en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:12:15 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.urch.com/forums/tm_images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.urch.com/forums http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128434-please-rate-my-argument-thanks-lot.html Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:39:55 GMT TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."
WORDS: 314 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-11-10 11:22:09

The reporter concludes that the pots were spead by migration instead of trade on the basis of several unconvincing reasons----analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons and the distribution of certain metallic element . Careful examination of each reason, it lends little credible support to the recommendation.
To begin with, the reporter's the key evidence is the bones of preshistoric human skeletons. His assumption is that certain metallic element is found in their bones. And he assumpts that this certain metallic element enters into their bones only by foods; these people who migrated to a new place after childhood often eat those food. But, as we all know, metallic element could enter into our body by various ways----such as water. So, maybe other people drink the water which comes from the place where the pots were made.
Trade can also make these pots spread to such a wide area. Even that certain kind of metallic element indeed enters into bones by food, food could also spread by trade----there is no evidence to object the possible that the food and pots are traded together. It is entirely possible that those pots are used to contain these food. Lacking more evidence, the reporter can not draw such a fallacious conclusion.
Finally, there may be other ways to spread these pots and make them to leave their hometown---if there has ever a war, the pot makers may be used as slaves. Then it is easy to explain why many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of that certain metallic element. Many other possible which leads to this result couold also exist, such as culture communication.
To sum up, the reporter ignores other factors cause the pots spread and correlations between the pots' spread and metallic element's. Lacking such evidence, the reporter can not draw such an unconvincing conclusion. ]]> GRE Analysis of an Argument ChinaBoy http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128434-please-rate-my-argument-thanks-lot.html http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128324-my-first-argument-argument-7-please-help-me-give-me-advices-much-you-can.html Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:01:17 GMT
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."



The arguer concludes that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if we elect Ann Green. He cites the examples that the number of factories in Clearview has doubled and the patients with respiratory illnesses has increased 25% to tell others not to elect Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council. Careful examination of each reason, none of those lend credible support to his conclusion.
First, the fact that the number of factories has doubled does not indicate that current members are not protecting our environment----maybe the majority of factories built during the past year are kind of producing less or no pollution enterprise, even could promote the local economics greatly and then they have more money to better the environment. Besides, the arguer does not give the source of this fact, so there is no evidence to prove that these factories cause air pollution. Objectively, there are lots of factors to lead air pollution levels increasing. Without ruling out other factors which could also lead this result, it is unconvincing to let me believe the arguer.
Moreover, the arguer also cites the evidence that the local hospital has treated 25% more patients with respiratory illnesses to support his conclusion. He ignores many other factors which can also lead respiratory illnesses----such as flu virus. But there is no apparently relationship between more patients and the member of the Clearview town council----maybe the patients have some habits which make them ill easily. Can the local hospital tipify the environment situation of whole city? Such a small and unconvincing study can not prove that it is the air pollution as a result of increasing factories that causes more people get respiratory illnesses.
Finally, the aruer does not talk about any measures which will be taken by Ann Green----even through he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. There is no any evidence to show that the members of the Good Earth Coalition will pay more attention to our environment than the current members. How could Ann Green ensure he will certainly solve the environmental problems as the arguer advertises?
In sum, the auger fails to cites powerful evidence to prove that Ann Green will do better than the current members. And no evidences show that current members do not care about our protecting----the example cited by him proves nothing but logically flawed. In summary, the arguer bases his argument on groundless conclusion that does not really prove anything.
]]> GRE Analysis of an Argument ChinaBoy http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128324-my-first-argument-argument-7-please-help-me-give-me-advices-much-you-can.html http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128166-could-someone-rate-me-my-first-ever-attempt.html Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:51:17 GMT ill be writing my gre in 5 days time. this is my 1st ever awa attempt and i would appreciate any feedback ...suggestions needed...and possible score thanks A recent study suggests that people who are left-handed are more likely to succeed in business than are right-handed people. Researchers... ill be writing my gre in 5 days time. this is my 1st ever awa attempt and i would appreciate any feedback ...suggestions needed...and possible score
thanks


A recent study suggests that people who are left-handed are more likely to succeed in business than are right-handed people. Researchers studied photographs of 1,000 prominent business executives and found that 21 percent of these executives wrote with their left hand. So the percentage of prominent business executives who are left-handed (21 percent) is almost twice the percentage of people in the general population who are left-handed (11 percent). Thus, people who are left-handed would be well advised to pursue a career in business, whereas people who are right-handed would be well advised to imitate the business practices exhibited by left-handers.

________________________________________

The author seems to base her opinion that right handed business execs are not as successful as the left handed business execs on data and information that is debatable in nature as a result of which her conclusion seems unsubstantiated .
The first flaw in the data that is used as the basis to reach the conclusion that left handed business executives are more successful than their right handed counterparts is that the number of subjects studied by the researchers seems too small when compared to the number of people in the general population. If more business execs were involved in the sample space of this study then we probably could see that the number of business execs that are left handed and the number of left handed people in the gentlemen in the general population would have had a closer numerical value as the influx of more right handed execs would due to the increase in the sample space would even the figures.
The other concern with regard to the data is the method or procedure used to determine data. How did the researchers determine if the business execs were right or left handed is not clear. Such facts are not reaily available so what data was made use of to determine if the exec was left or right handed. The internet for example , if used , is not the most reliable place from where data can be attained.
There are also a number of cases where people who are left handed switch to using their right hand and vice versa. There are cases where people are more comfortable using their right hand for all tasks but use their left for a few others. Then there is a group of people who can use either hand to write. The classification and grouping of such people in both the general population and in the sample space is debatable.
Being a business exec is one thing but being a successful business exec is a different matter altogether, If the sample space was further refined on basis of turnover and profits for each group we might see a different result altogether from that which the author states and would help support the fact that right handed business execs are more adept at their job than the left handed execs.
The age and experience of the business execs should be taken into account too, an older and more experienced business exec certainly has the luxury of time to reverse all the bad decisions that a younger inexperienced business executive would make.
The educational qualification of a business exec also would have a great say in the matter. There is a possibility that the business execs that tend to use their left hand are coincidentally more educated than their right handed counterparts due to the limited number of people taken into consideration.
Hence,it would be folly to make a decision on whether to pursue a career in business on the basis of whether the person is left handed or right handed based on this data alone. The author should use more comprehensive and detailed data to support her case. ]]> GRE Analysis of an Argument flavian http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/128166-could-someone-rate-me-my-first-ever-attempt.html http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/127409-please-rate-my-argument-i-got-5-5-last-time-but-im-not-sure.html Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:07:14 GMT I was pretty satisfied with my score from 2 months ago, but I have been too busy to practice since then and feel that this essay is not as powerful. I would appreciate your honest comments! Thanks in advance.

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor." Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

The argument asserts that Governor Riedeburg should be re-elected because she is the best-qualified candidate. The author supports his decision by saying that crime has decreased, jobs have doubled, more people have chosen to live in the state and that Ms. Riedeburg plans to increase the number of jobs by keeping large companies in the state. However, the author uses flawed evidence and makes many assumptions that weaken his case.

Governor Riedeburg has only been in office for three years. Often, political policies are carefully considered and refined for many months prior to implemention. The author fails to mention what the governor has done specifically that would cause the crime to decrease or jobs to increase and when she did it. Had he taken the time to connect the two seemingly disjointed points using more specific facts and dates, his argument would have been much stronger.

The argument also clearly lacks the evidence and statistical data needed to support the main points. The author hastily attributes the general well-being of the state to the actions of the governor. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that other factors could have contributed to the statistics he included in his argument. For example, crime could have decreased due to an upturn in the economy or due to a new neighborhood watch program. Similarly, the increase in jobs could be due to the older generation retiring or due to the initiation of new projects that require many workers. Either way, the author fails to analyze the specifics behind these hasty generalizations and makes this superficial statement highly unconvincing.

The author also assumes that more people have chosen to live in his state due to the governor. Here, the author lacks the statistics needed to support his point. It could be possible that he misinterpreted an upsurge in population to be due to increasing popularity of the state when it was actually due to job relocation or people looking to change their surroundings. There are many underlying reasons for why people move that the author did not consider. His argument could have been more powerful had he included a recent poll that surveyed many residents on why they moved to the state.

The argument also rests on the assumption that the governor will continue to act as she had in the past. Often, past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior, but it is inappropriate to assume that her past record will determine her performance in the position in the future. Furthermore, the author mentions that Governor Riedeburg has promised to work towards keeping large companies local, which the author assumes would provide new jobs for new residents. This logic is flawed because companies will only hire the most qualified people, which may not necessarily be the new residents. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that Governor Riedeburg will be helping the economy by providing jobs to new residents in the future.

Lastly, the author argues that Ms. Riedeburg is the best qualified candidate, but does not provide supporting examples of why he believes so, which leaves the reader to guess the quality of her opponents.

Ms. Riedeburg may be a great candidate for the position of governor, but this argument has many speculations that abate the quality of the argument. In light of the above considerations, the author leaves many gaps that open doors for counter attacks from opponents and fails to provide a hollistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.

Specific questions:
How is the quality of my argument points?
Is the organization good?
Overall, is the essay convincing?
What about the strength of words/word choice - what are some other good words that are similar in meaning to argue, weak, strengthen? I got stuck and couldn't think. ]]> GRE Analysis of an Argument gdaym8 http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-argument/127409-please-rate-my-argument-i-got-5-5-last-time-but-im-not-sure.html