conscientious

I would give your essay a 5. You've clearly given good questions and good examples. Your language is also expressive. To get a higher mark, I'd suggest more insightful questions and more elaborated examples.

Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. It is certainly plausible that, as argued, future research on Tertian culture should be conducted using the interview-centered method. However, the recommendation and the argument on which it is based cannot be validated as reasonable because they rely on assumptions. Twenty years is a long time – a lot can change, which this argument ignores. It’s possible that interviews twenty years ago would have confirmed Dr. Field’s conclusion. With the amount technology has changed lifestyles in that amount of time, children have gone from playing a simple game of tag outside to playing complex indefinite video games inside. It is logical to question whether the time accounts for the different results, not the method. In the same vein, studying Tertian culture is not the same as studying a group of islands including Tertia. It’s just as possible only a very small fraction of the children interviewed were from Tertia, so the results would be clouded by potentially very different cultures in the surrounding islands. For example, St. Kitts and Jamaica are close, but the general view toward homosexuality is very different. The cause for different results may be that the actual culture being studied is in fact different. Furthermore, even if time and place were unchanged, it is just as likely the observation-centered method is in fact more effective than the interview method. All we know is they produced different results, not which were correct. It should be considered that children may lack the full capacity to express themselves and can be influenced by interview questions more easily than an adult. They could place more importance on time with their biological parents, and thus talk more about them, even if they actually spend just as much time with other members of the village. Many questions must be answered before the presented conclusion is drawn and its recommendation is followed. First to be addressed is how the different times and different geographical scopes could have impacted the results. Also, the opposite argument, that further research should be conducted using the observation-centered method, should be thoroughly investigated. We cannot hope to have reliable information if the data collection method is determined without due diligence.

Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application. Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. There is no denying the fruitful lives we live are owed largely to research and development: Internet, vehicles, even comfortable chairs have been studied and practically perfected. These technologies were responses to demand. As such, research is best applied to the issues that affect us today. We live in a time when many discoveries and inventions save and improve lives every day for those with diabetes, heart disease, and AIDs. Not long ago, these illnesses were surely fatal and now many lead full, happy lives despite such a condition. Still, there are many solutions needed. Type 1 diabetes and AIDs cannot be cured yet and continue to deteriorate quality of life. Additionally, everyone knows someone with cancer, for which a cure is desperately needed. With so many problems we know need solutions, it would be irresponsible to conduct research without focus. In this day and age, we are also gravely aware of the dangers of research and development, from the Atom bomb to the horrifying studies conducted on Holocaust prisoners. Though illegal, drugs are still getting more lethal while more advanced weapons are shipped across borders. Bombs and drugs come from a lab, where scientists often inadvertently discover something new, which can be used for something bad. Focused on society’s current problems, though, researchers have a clear responsibility to produce beneficial solutions. Still, it must be acknowledged that many beneficial, needed technologies came from accidents, the aforementioned penicillin for diabetes included. When research has the freedom to flow, we may even answer an unknown we didn’t know that we didn’t know. If there weren’t so many pressing issues, research without focus may even be a preferable approach. In our times, research requires structure, control, and clear direction to develop the cures and solutions we need today. If we don’t know where we’re going, we’re highly unlikely to get there.

I would give this a 5. The first reason (inundation of information) is great - I would expand more, though, on how it is actually more efficient, i.e. makes lives simpler. The other reasons are good as well, but they are more describing how technology is good, not whether it is complex or simplifies. That focus may help your AWA.

Thank you for evaluating my argument! I'd say your argument is between a 4 and 5. Your analysis has good grammar and language as well as a well-considered position. However, I think your position could have been clearer in the first paragraph - it wasn't explicitly stated until the last paragraph. Also, it seems there is only one reason for your position (only those who experience it can describe it). I would expect a more thorough analysis would have more reasons supporting the position. Still, your examples supporting that reason are great.

The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview. "It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. In addition, the symphony has just announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. For these reasons, we recommend that the city eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget. We predict that the symphony will flourish in the years to come even without funding from the city." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order 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. It is possible the budget planner is correct in the argument to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. However, the presentation of the argument is missing a lot of information required before such a drastic decision should be made. First of all, the use of percentages can be very misleading. It is possible last year saw only $100 in private contributes, so an increase by 200% only means the orchestra saw $300, which could hardly be enough to fund an entire orchestra on its own. The same goes for the attendance statistic: if last year’s attendance was in fact only 10% of the available seats, doubling to 20% of ticket sales doesn’t seem to compensate for the loss of city funding. The argument is not only unspecific with percentages, but it is also vague with the statement regarding a price increase. Again, we are missing the key information: What is the new price for next year? How much will prices increased? It is impossible to guess how much this change will impact the amount of funding the orchestra can generate by itself. This point also ignores the basic economic principle that as prices rise, demand decreases. It is even possible last year only saw an increase in attendance due to decreased prices, perhaps through a marketing campaign of discounts, which would account for the increased attendance the argument depends upon to continue. Finally, this argument employs the common assumption that what is true for last year will be true for next year. In fact, we know the orchestra struggled financially before last year. There are many reasons one year could be an anomaly. For instance, an event like a traveling national archery competition could have drawn in tourists who attended the orchestra during their visit. The competition wasn’t in town before last year and it won’t be in town next year, so the outlier of last year should be exempt from decisions based on historical performance. Deciding to eliminate funding could have detrimental effects on the orchestra, so it warrants careful consideration. More clear and complete information is required before such a conclusion can be drawn.

I think you had three good points on different ways lack of change will cause massive harm, and the tone is rightfully urgent. To improve this argument, I would (a) form an original thesis rather than restate the given one; (b) expand on points more; and © review it for grammar and spelling errors. Because of those gaps, I'd say this argument is at a score of 3.

I like the sports analogy and you make good points. However, there are grammar issues that make it difficult to understand what you're saying. That's where I would focus attention if I were you.

Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Governments have a responsibility to invest in the education of the population for the benefit of the population. However, it is not necessary nor even a good identity to cover the entire cost of post-secondary education. As in Canada, governments do well to subsidize college and university education to a reasonable portion of the cost. To begin with, relying entirely on government funding is likely to reduce the finances of the schools. Without raising taxes, government budgets everywhere are already very tight without room for a huge additional expense. This means less money to compete with other countries for quantity and quality of professors, courses, and facilities. What good is a free education if the education is sub-par at best? When subsidized by the government, schools have obligation both toward supporting government interests of societal benefit, as well as the capitalistic drive to compete and profit, which drives performance and innovation. Furthermore, the huge additional expense to the government will surely take away from other more universally rewarding beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the investment does not benefit all citizens directly. Many people are not interested nor suited for post-secondary education. Taking away from infrastructure and military, for instance, doesn’t help people without children at post-secondary age who have to put up with the potholes and reduced security. If anything, the free aspect will attract many more students who are not committed or just not a good fit for university or college. This will detract from the serious students. Instead, subsidy tempers the obstacle of cost to make it more reasonable, while still maintaining a cost that acts, in a way, as a test of a student’s dedication. That said, some countries have implemented free post-secondary schooling. Education, after all, is a clear contributor to a country’s economy and GDP. Taking away the barrier of cost allows equal access to all. It is a matter of tradeoff. The United States has some of the most expensive schools, but they are also some of the world’s best schools. When a resource is made accessible to more people through government funding, something has to give, whether it be other services we rely on like infrastructure or the quality of the resource itself, or both. Government certainly has a strong relationship with the country’s schools. That is why most government’s fund elementary and secondary school. But should that extend to post-secondary? It would come at significant cost to the quality of the school as well as the other government services losing funding to compensate. As such, it is a more appropriate approach to subsidize post-secondary education rather than funding it completely. We need higher level thinkers and doers developed by higher level education. Beyond our physical health, our personal and societal quality of life depends on mental aptitude.

Excellent vocabulary! I may be wrong, but I believe the expectation is to include in the body reasons why one should consider both, as is your thesis, and use your examples as proof rather than the entire argument. Also, I might make it a bit more formal - writing an independent article rather than responding directly to a question. I hope that helps!