Bigduke's AWA Coaching!

[attrc]

Hey bigduke,
Thanks for your reply on the previous essay. Hope you're doing ok afetr the surgery...
Here's another essay I've written, and tried to stregthen the intro a bit. Vould you look at it, if you can?
http://www.urch.com/forums/showthrea...139#post157139

Thanks

[samy_dg]

Please comment on this one :

"Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."

Every place on earth has a history of its own. Even the most insignificant town has a past; a past that is sometimes glorious with legends of heroes; sometimes dark and shrouded with mystery. The stories of yesterday are sometimes inspiring and make the residents proud; sometimes, again, such stories seem like fantastic fairytales from a shadowy past. And most places have buildings and architectures, which carry the legacy of a memorable or half-known past. It can be an ancient church or a temple; the bells of which have chimed for centuries. It might be a castle, the place from where the earlier rulers used to ensure safety for the residents. Again it may just be an old, broken down cottage; deserted for ages; ordinary to look at, but having a lot of strange stories associated with it. These old buildings often stand with their heads held high in the midst of an ultramodern neighborhood—bearing proudly the symbols of misty shadowy days of a vaguely remembered past. In the middle of the busiest city centers, they remind us of days when everything was different. These buildings might be shabby and worn out, standing wearily in a dilapidated condition like an apparition,with chunks of concrete coming off, faded paint and protruding beams. Again, they may be gorgeous and ornate with majestic archways and towers. Many buildings are famous for the great persons who once stayed there; the homes of Shakespeare or the birthplace of Einstein create a special sensation when a visitor steps into them. Many, again are remembered for the events that took place there. Such buildings often stand proudly bearing symbols of a glorious or a not so glorious yesterday; in the midst of all the modern architectural wonders of our ultra-modern 21st century technology. Whatever be its link to history; an old house is generally loved by locals, and most people have some kind of a nostalgia associated with these buildings.

As civilization expands and places develop at jet speed in today's fast changing world; these old architectures, however, often posse problems to us. Very often engineers and architects face situations where an old historic building blocks the possibility of the development of a modern architecture. Perhaps such a house stands tall on the way of a new highway or a flyover; the construction of which would otherwise be much beneficial for the locals. In such cases, the authorities have to take a decision: whether they would sacrifice people's benefits and preserve the legacy of the past; or would they rather ensure ease and well-being for present day residents at the cost of historical remains.

There cannot be a straight answer to the above question; and a lot of things have to be considered before arriving at the decision. We have to answer the following questions: How important is the building in question as far the history of the place is concerned. And secondly, how important is the suggested modern construction for the residents.

There are buildings which have become symbols of places down the ages. Such buildings bring lots of tourists every year and have become a part of the city's own identity. It would be foolish to bring down such buildings for some modern utility. It would only be ridiculous to replace, say the Leaning Tower of Pisa, with a brand new 200-floor business center; even if Pisa appears to be a great location for the latter. Nor would it be wise to tamper with the neighboring background of a nostalgic building. We cannot imagine the growing shadow of a gigantic multiplex over the splendors of the Taj Mahal. For the same reason, Paris hasn't allowed its horizon to be crowded with skyscrapers; letting the Eiffel Tower reign supreme over the Parisian skyline.

But then, there may be different situations. There might be a case where the building is of little importance; standing oddly in the middle of glorious high rises; resembling a clumsy goose flanked by adorable swans. If such a building is obstructing the possibility of modern constructions, then it is useless to preserve it for the sake of heritage. We have to realize that past is important to us only in the way it affects our present; and the present has to be given the priority when a clash appears between the two.

Thus we see that the decision whether to bring down or preserve an old building has to be made analyzing the cause of new construction and the importance of the old building. Whichever surpasses the other, must be our prior consideration; and if needs demand, the past has to make way for the present; to ensure a better future.




Thanking you in advance,

Samy_dg.

[bigduke]

I'll take it that your stand on the topic is neutral.
1. Avoid repetition of words or phrases in a single para, e.g. "again" in para 1.
2. Use transition words/phrases like however, furthermore, for instance (refer to barrons for a list)
3. The intro was great but cut it short, the conclusion went flat.
4. There don't seem to be any clear claims supported by concrete evidence/anecdote etc. It all seems like a non-rhetoric essay. Analysis of an issue is meant to move the reader, it HAS to have some rhetoric element in it, you are trying to convince the reader of your stand and not merely express your views on the the subject.
Infact, I have seen only one point in there, "build new buildings if its important based on certain aspects".

The idea is to tell the reader if you believe in something then why do you do so.
In the GRE although a neutral stand is acceptable, use it only in case of major controversial issues concerning philosophical sects, views on history etc. For something like this, make up your mind, whether or not and then come up with atleast FOUR excellent points that'll leave no doubt in the reader's mind about your views.

Hope that helps.

[samy_dg]

Thank you so much for your suggestions.
I'll definitely take them into account in the future.

[ish]

Hi Big duke. I cant believe I missed this thread. I'd posted this a couple of days back, and I did get a friend's opinion on it.I would love it if you could let me know what you think as well. Thanks.

"Only once when one has known real sadness can one feel true happiness”




I completely agree with the given statement that only when a person has known real sadness can he appreciate true happiness. A lot of people would jump at the offer of complete happiness without any sadness to mar their lives. However, in retrospect, I feel this attitude is rather puerile. One of the most important things that set us apart is our capacity to learn from experience. This capacity ranges from the obvious, from learning that we must not put our hands in front of a fire, lest we get burnt, to the profound. It is these experiences that enrich our lives and make us better people.



To further my point, I would like to narrate a certain analogy of a little girl who was diagnosed with a particular disorder of the nervous system, so she could never feel pain. Initially, the ramifications of such a disorder were lost on most people who came in contact with this little girl. However, soon they became alarmed at what she was facing. Even if she were bleeding profusely from a cut or a bruise, she would nonchalantly observe the blood, and remain impassive. She was never in pain, though she could easily have bled to death. A person who has not feel sadness is in much the same situation. Initially, everyone around him feels that his is a rather advantageous position, as he does not experience one of the emotions that all the world tries to avoid, sadness, but as we think further, we realize that it is a very debilitating condition.



One of the emotions that unites the whole world is sadness. Each and every person relates to it, as he has felt it himself at some point of time. A kinship is born out of shared sorrow, and it gives birth to compassion. A person who does not feel any sadness will never understand what it feels like to be in pain, to suffer. He will always look at the world with his very narrow view of the person who is capable of only one emotion. Besides, the idea of happiness itself would become redundant in our lives if sadness were absent in it, because what is sadness if not an absence of happiness?



When we feel sadness, the agony of losing someone we love, the loss of having a dream shattered, we discover new facets of ourselves that were dormant in easier times. Out of sadness, great heroes have been born, and extraordinary acts have been performed. I truly believe that a person learns much more about life when he is in dire circumstances. We would so easily become complacent about everything if there weren’t anything to check us. More importantly, only if we have experienced the loss of something will we realize completely the value of that entity in our lives. After all, we value what we miss, not what we have.



In conclusion, I’d like to reiterate my belief that we must understand that though sadness can seem debilitating, it serves to empower us greatly. Our attitude to certain emotions matters as much, or more, than the emotion itself. Without sadness or pain in our lives, we would be resigning our lives to a boring existence where there is nothing to feel especially happy or hopeful about, because we will never realize just how much it means to us. We would very easily take everything for granted, and lose perspective on almost all matters of our lives. Sadness is an inherent part of life, and just as every other emotion, can empower us, if we look at it the right way.

[orangesun]

Hi! Could you please give me some feedback to this argument essay? I am interested in comments about the overall aspects of my essay. Did I mention all the important logical fallacies, and did I draw any incorrect conclusions? Thanks so much!





59. Sunspots

The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper.



"According to the available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity—that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun."


This argument concludes that based on a correlation between flu epidemics in several years and the heavy sunspot activity in those years that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. He further claims people who are at risk of developing the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. At first glance the author's suggestions seems to be a reasonable recommendation for preventing the flu. However, a close examination of the argument reveals that the conclusion is not entirely convincing and ignores certain crucial assumptions.



To begin with, the most crucial flaw is that the writer attributes the cause of the flu epidemic to heavy sunspot activity. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the flu is caused by other factors as well that occurred much more in these years than in other years. For instance, perhaps in those years people had abnormally bad hygiene, causing them to get sick more than in other years. The living environment and availability of medical facilities cannot be ruled out as possible causes either. It is also entirely possible that the increased sunspot activity indirectly caused the flu epidemic, not through sun exposure, but, rather, through a third factor. For instance, perhaps the sunspot activity caused a change in the physical conditions on the earth, atmospheric changes, or even insect behavior. For instance, it is entirely possible that a change in insect behavior explains the increased flu epidemic, especially if there was an increased tendency of insects to transmit the flu disease in those years. Thus, an indirect result from the sunspot activity could have led to a worldwide flu epidemic, a possibility too quickly dismissed by the author. Thus, the writer clearly needs to establish the causality between the flu and the sunspot activity to make his argument more convincing.



Additionally, granted that the sunspot activity causes flu epidemics and that the worst flu epidemics did take place in those six years, the author relies on the assumption that increased sunspot activity automatically means more sun exposure. No matter how much energy from the sun is coming in to the earth, to a large degree people actively control the amount of time exposed to the sun. It is even possible that in those years the flu became an epidemic because people deliberately avoided exposure to the sun, especially if people anticipated incorrectly that less sunlight means less risk of flu.



Furthermore, the medical records themselves may be problematic in several respects. For instance, the accuracy of these records is questionable, since it is possible that in the 1700's and 1800's records of flu outbreaks and sunspot activity were incomplete and not available in every country. Even with the aid of technology in recent years, recent records may not be reliable, since any data recorded by human beings are subject to error. In choosing the years with the worst flu epidemics, the author needs some way to decide which flu epidemic is worst than another - is this determined by the number of people who become affected by the disease, or determined by the severity of the symptoms of the disease? In any case, there could be many undocumented cases of even worse flu epidemics, especially those in poor countries where traceable medical records are unlikely. Only six points are analyzed, and may be too narrow to be widely representative. Without presenting more evidence about the accuracy of the data, the author cannot expect me to blindly accept their veracity.



Finally, the author relies on the line of reasoning that people at risk for the flu are the same people who would get the flu. However, the study provides no indication that these are the same groups of people - the statistics only consider people who have already developed the flu. He does not define the meaning of "prolonged" or indicate exactly how much exposure would put someone at risk of developing the flu. Therefore, to strengthen his line of reasoning, the author should define terms such as prolonged exposure more clearly.



In conclusion, the argument presented in the article of the newspaper is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that people at risk of developing the flu should avoid exposure to the sun does little to prove that conclusion, does it does not address the assumptions raised above. As already mentioned, the argument could have been strengthened by establishing the causality between the flu and sunspot activity, demonstrating that more energy from the sun means more sun exposure, ascertain the accuracy of the medical records, and define certain terms more clearly. Until then, the speaker's recommendation cannot be justified.

[bigduke]

ish, nice use of words there.
Although the essay seems fair, it fails to convey what you really feel about the subject line. I know this is very abstract topic but the essay assessors won't consider that. Second para doesn't even make any sense. After reading the whole essay one question comes to mind "Just how do you assert your beliefs over the topic".
Avoid being so definitive in the opening line of the intro, we're not here to drop bombs but to flood the user's senses gradually.
Pick another topic and give it another shot, you're capable of much more. Also, watch out for gramatical errors.

[ish]

ish, nice use of words there.
Although the essay seems fair, it fails to convey what you really feel about the subject line. I know this is very abstract topic but the essay assessors won't consider that. Second para doesn't even make any sense. After reading the whole essay one question comes to mind "Just how do you assert your beliefs over the topic".
Avoid being so definitive in the opening line of the intro, we're not here to drop bombs but to flood the user's senses gradually.
Pick another topic and give it another shot, you're capable of much more. Also, watch out for gramatical errors.

Right. I shall work on it and post another one soon. I must admit,This has been an eyeopener for me.
Hope you are recovering well from your surgery.
This is my first argument.

We need to institute a huge pulicity campaign for the launch of SunBeem's new improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including television, radio, internet, and magazine ads, potential new customers will not be aware of our product. and previous customers will not be aware that SunBeem's new, noncarcinogenic formula is on the shelves. The best way to combat the negative publicity SunBeem's old formula received is to fight fire with fire, by using the media's insatiable interest in any news about Sunbeem to sell the new formula. This will erase the negative connotations in the minds of former customers and will ensure that SunBeem is once again the best selling facial cleanser on the market.

The speaker for the company ackowledges the need for greater awareness of his product, "Sunbeem" and claims that the best means of increasing awareness is to launch an aggressive publicity campaign, using the full strength of the media. He also claims that the best way to counter the negative publicity that the product received earlier is to simply increase the consumer's interest in his product and thereby sell the new formula and ensure that the product once again becomes the best selling facial cleanser in the market.

By making such statements, the speaker assumes, firstly, that the consumer would not be aware of "Sunbeem" were it not for advertising campaigns. This is not true at all. Though advertising does help in increasing awareness about a product among the masses, to assume that a product will go unnoticed primarily because of a lack of advertising is taking that relationship too far. The speaker seems to be too reliant on advertisements, and this dependence is a double-edged sword for Sunbeem, especially as the speaker concedes that his product had received bad publicity in the past. If the public were bombarded with advertisements and hoardings about Sunbeem in the wake of the recent negative publicity, there is a very good chance that the consumer would automatically recall the negative publicity. Therefore, a huge publicity campaign is a rather heavy risk for the company to take,something that could turn out to be detrimental to the company.

Secondly, besides relying too heavily on the power of advertisements, the speaker states that the best way to fight bad publicity is "to fight fire with fire". The speaker does not make any explanation on how his product has been made better, and simply assumes that the public will buy his claim that Sunbeem has, indeed, improved. Consumers are more discerning than the speaker is willing to admit, and to assume that huge advertisement campaigns will restore the integrity of the brand is a complete mistake on the part of the speaker. Especially as Sunbeem is a brand that has once been damaged by negative reports, the only way of salvaging the product's place in the market is to come clean and to admit the mistake, and to elaborate, sincerly, on the recovery efforts undertaken by the company.

Another fallacious assumption I find in the statement is the author's belief that the media has an insatiable interest in Sunbeem. It is this "insatiable interest" that the speaker intends to use in order to further his own ends. however, I find the assumption totally unfounded, as there is no particular reason why the media should be more than cursorily interested in Sunbeem. To make such a statement seems only to emphasise the speaker's own feelings about his product, and not that of the media's.

In summary, the speaker assumes a lot many factors about his product that are completely baseless, and have been formed with a very narrow perspective in mind. The speaker does not once make a statement about the recovery efforts made by his company, and seems more interested in reaching his end, that is to increase publicity and thereby make his brand the top facial cleanser. The speaker completely disregards the many other factors that go into the creation of a top brand, underestimates the intelligence of the consumer greatly, and continues to look at the present problem with his own onesided view. Thus, I feel that unless the speaker corrects these mistakes in his views on improving the product, a mere advertising campaign will not help Sunbeem the way the speaker assumes it will.

[bigduke]

Orangesun, omigosh, flawless, excellent presentation or ideas and great use of language flow.
I could give you a 6.0 for this but I'm an exacting assessor and I caught something in there, the flu is caused by virii , missed a point

Rating : 5.5

Watch out for punctuations though

[aks1232001]

Hi Big Duke! here is my first serious essay! Wrote it exactly in 45 mins. Had No preparation before.

Individuals Vs Team

The 20th century heralded a new beginning in the history of the mankind. It saw Man unraveling the mysteries of the atom and at the same time conquering the cosmos. The plethora of problems which have plagued mankind for ages, have been solved in a little over a span of 100 years. Man found cures to diseases that were earlier incurable. He can now travel at the speed of sound, crossing the Atlantic now takes a few hours compared to the months that were spent in the past. The sky scrappers now touch the heavens. The various successes that have been achieved in the past 100 years have always been based on the vision of a few extraordinary individuals.



It is indeed true that though the importance of team work cannot be ignored in today’s world, it is usually the powerful ideas of a few individuals that change the world. It was a single person who changed the entire foundation of the world of Physics; Albert Einstein changed the way we look at our world. With his theory of relativity the laws that governed us have been rediscovered. It was due to his relentless dedication and passion that the present advancements in various branches of physics have been achieved. The world pf physics would be empty if not for contributions of people like Einstein, Newton, etc.

It was Bill Gates who single handedly brought a revolution in the world of computers. The revolutionary ideas starting from the development of the advances in Microprocessor technologies to the World Wide Web (or the internet) were generally the ideas of a single person. With the power of imagination and a passion for his work man has been able to cause unparalleled developments in various fields.



In the field of Arts a Van Goff or Da Vinci has been able to enchant the entire mankind with his works. The enigmatic smile of Mona Lisa still mesmerizes us. A monument like Taj Mahal which stands as a symbol of eternal love is due to the passionate love of a single man. In the world of fashion too, the ideas of a single person determine what is "In or out". A design by Gucci would be a style statement not only in France or United States but in fact the name would evoke a respect everywhere. It is their collections that decide the wardrobes of not just the Hollywood stars but also the most powerful leaders and rulers.

Indeed team work plays a part that cannot be ignored. Wonders like the Hubble Telescope cannot be built on the ideas a lone man, whether its the Taj Mahal or the Petronas towers in Malaysia, indeed the work of the team cannot be ignored, but in all the above cases it is a single man who has changed the direction of thinking of the entire humanity. It is they who have shown us a new direction to progress. Without the ideas of such people we would still be living in a world that would be not so different from the way the cave man lived.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Considering people say the no. words matter. I wrote abt 522 words. guys a fnd of mine read it n said i deserved a 5. but i felt may b i wrote the essay more out of passion trying to make it look good than bring out more logical points.. So por favor, el señor tell to me how much i deserve!!!!

Well guys my gre is coming up soon. If i score well in it i will soon be starting a rival coaching thread (or rather il try n help u out Big Duke) wonderful Job.. thanx a lot!!!!!