Please evaluate my Argument essays

[ThinkHard]

Hi All,

Could anyone kindly evaluate my 2 essays put forward below ?
These are the 1st 2 I have written. My GRE is scheduled for 28th October.

Argument 1: A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.

Essay: The assumption that by consuming at least 20gms of Soy everyday would help avoid the risks of fatigue/depression in the North Americans may sound logical at first glance of reading the article. But, this conclusion lacks substance. The arguments in favor of it have loopholes as stated below.
Firstly, the author assumes that its only soy consumption that has kept fatigue/depression away from the Asians. It could be so that these people have some other foods like say green vegetables that contribute to their biological immunity. The writer should have put forward the staple diet of the Asians and alongside each food its benefits. By this the real immunizer would be figured out. If soy is the one, then the author’s argument would have been well defended. Another point is the author refers to soy as having ‘disease-preventing properties’. Which disease does it actually help combat? This should have been clearly outlined.
Secondly, there are not statistics regarding the number of North Americans and Asians surveyed. The author uses the term ‘on an average’. This does not suffice/mention regarding the Asian community as a whole. Is it that no North American consumes soy? It could be so that some North Americans eat soy. Then, have these people ever suffered from Fatigue/Depression since they have made this food item a part of their diet? These questions need to have been answered in the article before any conclusion could have been made.
To summarize had the author provided more details on the statistics of the number of North Americans/Asians surveyed and on the Asians diet and benefits of the foods they consume, the fact could have been revealed. If it is indeed soy which battles fatigue/depression, keeping it at bay, then the writer’s argument would have been well supported. As, of now, the conclusion made in the article is foundationless.




Argument 2: In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.

Essay: Many believe change is a part of life. It makes a lot of sense. But, what the author seems to be in favor off is totally replacing what has been there for a century or even more. The argument in favor of destroying the old town hall to put up a brand new building which is considered to be efficient in terms of power-usage seems to be thought of in haste and with no clear attention being paid to the quality the writer seems to be so bothered about – economy.
To start off, building a new building is considered to be the best alternative. Perhaps modifying the hall to accommodate a permanent heating/cooling system would suffice. Also, extending it a bit by adding another floor could put to rest the problem of it being too small to accommodate all the employed in the town. Additionally, perhaps not all the citizens visit the hall at the same time. So, this problem would not remain a problem. Another point to be noticed is the one wherein the author says ‘some citizens have proposed’ setting up the new building. Since, the town hall is like an artifact, all the citizens must be surveyed as to whether they would want to actually pull down the hall.
Secondly, the author does not mention the exact cost of heating/cooling the town hall currently. Is this cost much more than the one to break down the old town hall and constructing a new building in place? It is also assumed the new building would be more efficient in terms of the energy usage for heating/cooling? How efficient would it be? The exact numbers are missing.
The author’s argument as of now does not seem to be much favorable. To make it so he/she should have put forward the statistics in terms of cost to heat/cool the town hall against the one to do the same in the new proposed building. Also, quoting the costs for setting up the new building could have actually reflected whether this is indeed a good idea. Another important point is the consent of citizens of Rockingham to actually go ahead with obliterating the town hall.