MBAbound

Hi all, Strong in Quantitative and Verbal, I want to improve my Analytical Writing (I have trouble coming up with examples/reasons and finishing in less than 30 mins). I have written several practice essays. If you want, we can score each other's essays. Below is one; please critique. Message me for more. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities." Write a response in which you examine the unstated assumptions of the argument above. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. The argument assumes that a) the Mason River is suitable for water sports; b) residents are not using the river for water sports because it is not clean. It uses these assumptions to claim that after the river has been cleaned, recreational activities on the river will increase. Correspondingly, it holds the city government responsible for additional funding towards riverside recreational facilities. However, if the Mason River is ill-suited for water sports (for reasons other than cleanliness, see below), then we cannot expect a cleaning of the river to result in increased recreational use of the river. If this is the case (after it has been cleaned, the Mason River continues to rarely be used for recreation), then the money spent improving the riverside facilities will have been wasted. The city government should wait until after the river has been cleaned to gauge recreational use of the river. If use does not increase, then no additional money needs to be devoted to maintaining riverside facilities. If use does increase, the city’s observance will give a better idea of where the money will be best spent. Additionally, it may take several years before residents begin recreating on the Mason River, as even after it has been cleaned, they will have memories of dirty, smelly water. So more money for riverside facilities should be allocated only after recreation along the river has increased. Many different scenarios are possible. For example, if the water in the Mason River is very deep and swift, then it can hardly be used for swimming. If there are many bridges where the river runs through town, that might limit boating opportunities, as would a large number of commercial boats. Or, it could be a small, narrow river--equally eliminating the option of boating. One last assumption the argument makes: the surveys sent to residents contained appropriate questions. Consider, for example, if the surveys were written and sent by a recreational lake on the outskirts of town. Even if the city park department distributed the surveys, without knowing how the questions were worded, we can’t confidently use the results. In summary, the city government should simply not allocated additional funding for facilities along the Mason River recreational until there is a demonstrated rise in the level of recreation taking place there. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how those considerations shape your position. With the rise of technology, humans are encouraged to think more for themselves, not less, as the statement has asserted. I am interpreting “the ability to think” as the ability to creatively solve problems; not the ability to recall memorisable facts. It seems that the claim unreasonably assumes that all brain effort is important and should be protected. I disagree, however, and think that thoughts which are representative of one human's creative force are most valuable. Take for example, modern word-processors with spell and grammar checkers. Through personal experience, I have noticed that by using these checkers, my knowledge of spelling and simple grammatical structures has been reduced. Nonetheless, my vocabulary or writing ideas have not been affected. Furthermore, I don't think those two things could be replicated by a computer or any other technological device. A similar example is the use of calculators. Many students panic when they hear they cannot use a calculator for an exam, even if it is for low-level math. These students may not be able to add or multiply as fast as they once could, but that in no way means that their abilities to think for themselves has deteriorated. Rather, they can probably devote their mental capacity to creating solutions for more complex problems [solutions which are distinctly theirs], as opposed to basic airthmetic facts which remain unchanged for any other human. To those who would say that demonstratable knowledge is lost as a result of increased use of technology, I concede this fact. However, I counter with the question "Which type of knowledge has been lost?" If it is information which is the same everytime for everyone, then it's loss is unimportant. If we are instead talking about the skill of one human to think uniquely and create ideas which could never be replicated, then I don't think technology could ever replace that. That is essentially my reason for refuting the claim. As technology solves more of man's basic problems, his mind is liberated to pursue higher thoughts, creative thoughts, individual thoughts. These thoughts allow him to focus on solving more important problems.

Hi all, Strong in Quantitative and Verbal, I want to improve my Analytical Writing (I have trouble coming up with examples/reasons and staying under 30 mins). I have written several practice essays. If you want, we can score each other's essays. Below is one; please critique. Message me for more.