My First Analysis - Please evaluate - 4 days to Dday

[tommytommy]

The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:

“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit out community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”

-----------------------

The letter environmental protection group (EPG)to the residents of Youngtown seems an attempt to move them against the sale of a piece of property within a Wildlife Preverve to the Smith corporation where the construction of a hotel has been proposed.

The letter argues that the construction of a hotel, though only on a small part of the sanctuary and despite the assurance given by Smith to protect the sanctuary, will destroy the sanctuary and endanger the survival of the 300 species of birds that the sanctuary hosts, which will result in the decline of tourism on which the community relies.

The letter however fails to prove or clarify how such a development with affect the sanctuary, if at all it does. It does not explain why it will be 'disastrous' or what these 'disastrous consequences' are that they are alluding to? How will the plans harm the sanctuary and its hosts of bird species. Will the construction pollute the sanctuary or scare away the birds? Will is upset the ecological balance?

A clear argument can be made for the construction of this hotel - Tourism. Since the community does rely on tourism, a hotel will, if anything, boost the industry. Yes, the tourits come to see the birds, but they also would need a place to stay. The town needs to be able to host them.

Finally, on what basis does EPG allege Smith of not intending to preserve the sanctuary. It is only in Smiths best interest to preserve the sacntuaty - its wildlife and beauty- as they too depend on the tourists it attracts for their business to be profitable.

The letter fails to make a convincing argument on any grounds, and EPG clearly fails to connect with the community in understanding what it needs. At the very least EPG should had tried to suggest an alternative which worked for the betterment of all the groups involved.

----------
Any guidance for improvement is appreciated.

[tommytommy]

anyone?

[tommytommy]

postponed my exam. taking it later. no thanks for looking and not commenting

[grepsycho]

I don't think the first sentence is necessary. You task is to attack the writer's argument, and not guess his/her purpose.
The points are valid, but i think you can elaborate on them more.
It would be nice too if you can suggest ways for EPG to strengthen their argument. something like: If EPG can show clear evidence that building a hotel will harm the ecology, then the argument is much more substantiated.

I guess you can understand how frustrating it is to not get feedback before GRE, can you please rate mine?

[mansi2405]

The letter environmental protection group (EPG)to the residents of Youngtown seems an attempt to move them against the sale of a piece of property within a Wildlife Preverve(Spelling mistake) to the Smith corporation where the construction of a hotel has been proposed.

The letter argues that the construction of a hotel, though only on a small part of the sanctuary and despite the assurance given by Smith to protect the sanctuary, will destroy the sanctuary and endanger the survival of the 300 species of birds that the sanctuary hosts, which will result in the decline of tourism on which the community relies. (TOO LONG SENTENCE)

The letter however fails to prove or clarify how such a development with (should have been will)affect the sanctuary, if at all it does. It does not explain why it will be 'disastrous' or what these 'disastrous consequences' are that they are alluding to? How will the plans harm the sanctuary and its hosts of bird species. Will the construction pollute the sanctuary or scare away the birds? Will is (it)upset the ecological balance?

A clear argument can be made for the construction of this hotel - Tourism. Since the community does rely on tourism, a hotel will, if anything, boost the industry. Yes, the tourits (spelling)come to see the birds, but they also would need a place to stay. The town needs to be able to host them.

Finally, on what basis does EPG allege Smith of not intending to preserve the sanctuary. It is only in Smiths best interest to preserve the sacntuaty (spelling)- its wildlife and beauty- as they too depend on the tourists it attracts for their business to be profitable. (wrong sentence construction)

The letter fails to make a convincing argument on any grounds, and EPG clearly fails to connect with the community in understanding what it needs. At the very least EPG should had (have)tried to suggest an alternative which worked for the betterment of all the groups involved.

THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED ARE GOOD.but there are a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes.