Argument Evaluation: An international development organization, in response to a ...

[prateekagrwl04]

This issue is from the Manhattan free practice test. Give comments and rating 0-6.

 

An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.

 

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The author asserts that the new breed of millet,being high in Vitamin A, is the answer to the problem of the natives of Tagus for their Vitamin A deficiency and additionally ,farmers being provided with subsidy and the fact that millet is a staple food of Tagus will be enough for the success of the new engineered millet. The claim of the author is unsubstantiated with logical reasons in support of the assertion and also overlooks many other factors which I will enumerate.

 

At the outset, the claim of the author that millet being the staple food of the country will be easily accepted is not in the entirety. It overlooks the fact that the crop is an engineered crop and being synthetically bread, people can be skeptic about the methods that are used to produce the crop.

 

The author also does not focus on the fact that except subsidy, the farmers may be concerned about some other aspects of the crop. It is important to study the after effects of this breed of millet on soil. It may so happen that this new breed is better as it has an increased absorption of minerals from the soil and may in turn leave the soil deficient of minerals and farmers may not be able to grow any other crop the entire year.

Farmers may also be concerned about its climate water and pest tolerance and the care they may have to provide to the crops.

 

Finally, the author fails to acknowledge the scientific fact that being rich in Vitamin A may not be the only aspect that needs to be focused on. It may be true that people are deficient in some other protein or mineral or enzymes that could cause difficulty in the absorption of Vitamin A in the body just as providing oxygen rich air to a person cannot be the solution to his problem of less oxygen in blood. It can also be true that the person has lesser haemoglobin which binds oxygen to the blood. The organization, being international, might have tested it on people deficient in Vitamin A but with acceptable amount of the enzyme that may be required for its absorption. Thus, it might not have encountered the problem that hinders the absorption of Vitamin.

 

So,one needs to make people aware of the safety of using the engineered breed.Also what is needed is more research on the effects of the crop on soil and its tolerance factors .

Thus, we see that the claims of the author, albeit on right path, are not completely corroborated with research. The assumptions are rile with holes. Only when the above points are taken into consideration can the entire process be evaluated in a better way.

[barryDC]

nice essay,

In introduction i think u should avoid using this "other factors which I will enumerate."

 

sound arguments, so i don't see any problem there.

 

Good conclusion: reiterating your arguments in conclusion is always a good strategy...,but avoid saying "Only when the above points are taken into consideration can the entire process be evaluated in a better way. " - sounds a bit dominating, try saying answers should be sought to these questions before a decision is taken,,,

 

anyways, I also wrote on a similar topic. Can you judge mine ?

 

The argument is that in Tagus, the people are deficient in vitamin A. Realizing that millets are a part of the diet of the people, an international organization has developed a new breed of millet seeds, which are rich in vitamin A. The conclusion based on the above premises is that the government should do everything it can, to promote this new millet to address the deficiency of vitamin A.

 

Several questions need to be asked before such a conclusion is reached. Firstly, the current diet proportions of the people in Tagus needs to be analyzed. That is, the proportion of millets in everyday food needs to be studied. If the proportion is just about 5%, improving the efficacy of vitamin A in millets will not address the deficiency of the people. In such a case, the target to focus on should be completely different.

 

Secondly, a survey should be conducted amongst the people and especially farmers in Tagus, on the issue on introducing genetic changes in seeds. As the country is a little impoverished and backwards, it might not adapt to these changes. In such a case providing subsidies to the farmers for the new seeds will not have any effect. They would simply choose not to comply.

 

Finally, if the millets were introduced and majority of the farmers shifted to them, it must be determined what effect this change would have on the other local produce. It may happen that since these seeds are subsidized, everyone starts farming millets and the other crops are sidelined. This would affect the overall nutritional health of Tagus as whole.

 

In conclusion, even though the decision seems reasonable, it is clear that answers to the above questions must be sought to fully determine if this plan would be feasible.

[prateekagrwl04]

Here are my points(I am being blunt. I am sorry for that but I need to point out the flaws directly)

 

1. Short essay. Length should be at least 400 words.

 

2. Arguments not well developed. Like the second; you should explain why country cannot cope with the change? like maybe the new seed has different and unpleasant taste

 

3. Not clear understanding of Ques. Staple food is the primary food so it cant be just 5%.

 

4. Arguments not clear. You need to point out SPECIFICS.

 

Score: 2.5 max.

 

[triscia]

I disagree with barryDC's points, I actually liked the sentences he/she objected to. I'm not sure you should start your conclusion with "So..." but maybe that's just my idea. Overall it's solid, it is well connected, the issues you bring forward are to the point so I think you'd get 5 or 5.5 for this one!

[barryDC]

Here are my points(I am being blunt. I am sorry for that but I need to point out the flaws directly)

 

1. Short essay. Length should be at least 400 words.

 

2. Arguments not well developed. Like the second; you should explain why country cannot cope with the change? like maybe the new seed has different and unpleasant taste

 

3. Not clear understanding of Ques. Staple food is the primary food so it cant be just 5%.

 

4. Arguments not clear. You need to point out SPECIFICS.

 

Score: 2.5 max.

 

 

Thank you, for pointing out the errors.

I find it difficult to write / describe more. I got used to the short - summary writing - style while taking notes in college. Will work on it somehow.

 

Yes, i did not read the question correctly too. Good observation. I must absolutely avoid such a grave error such as this on the actual GRE.

:encouragement: