Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Argument and Issue AWA. Please review and feedback? [#permalink]
15 Dec 2010, 17:43
ARGUMENT: We should proceed with our plan to open a new Classy Steakhouse restaurant in the busy Downtown Centre mail in the central business district of Hopeville. Although two restaurants in that location have closed in the past year (one a burger joint, the other a Chinese restaurant), their failure does not mean that Downtown Centre is an unsuitable location for our restaurant. After all, The Centre Cade has been in business at that location for twenty-five years. Furthermore, national reports from the restaurant industry show that business executives are eating out more frequently than ever. It is therefore likely that we will be very successful at that location
MY RESPONSE: The argument claims that the busy Downtown Centre mall in the central business district of Hopeville is an ideal location for a successful Classy Steakhouse restaurant, despite the closure of a burger joint and a China restaurant in the past year at the same location. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument failed to assess the cause behind the exit of the two restaurants that was at the same location and closed in the past year, and readily assumes that the closed restaurants themselves are responsible but not the location. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in anyway. For instance, the location may be inconvenient to local residence and offices. Therefore, greatly reduces the exposure to the downtown customer base. Furthermore, it is plausible that the performance of the closed restaurant was decent but they were deemed unprofitable due to high rents and utilities cost typical of downtown real estates. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the factors that caused the previous occupants to withdraw.
Secondly, the argument drew parallel with The Centre Cade, a restaurant in business for twenty-five years at the same location, assuming the new Classy Steakhouse restaurant will be similarly successful. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between The Centre Cade's success and that of Classy Steakhouse restaurant. For example, the type of cuisine, level of services and average price range of a meal are all important factors to the success of a restaurant. Furthermore, having operated for twenty-five years, The Centre Cade presumably has built up a considerable customer base and loyality. Clearly, the argument does not provide evidences to support the claim that Classy Steakhouse will be as successful as The Centre Cade.
Finally, the argument claims that a recent national reports show that business executives are eating out more frequently than ever without explicitly explaining the expectation of these individuals in their selection of restaurants. For example, service level, location and type of the restaurants picked by these individuals. It is plausible that business executives at the Hopeville business district are prefers take out deli sandwiches than a steak meal during lunch hours. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Re: Argument and Issue AWA. Please review and feedback? [#permalink]
15 Dec 2010, 17:43
ISSUE: The responsibility for the conservation of our natural resources ultimately rests on the shoulders of each human being on the plant, not on the world’s governments.
MY RESPONSE: Some people think that the responsibility for the conservation of our natural resources ultimately rests on the shoulders of each human being on the planet. Other people support the claim that the responsible use of natural resources should be driven by the world's governments. The issue is a controversial one but a closer examination reveals that the responsibility should rests with the world's governments.
Firstly, conservation of natural resources is a long term and costly investment into the future. Governments should provide support to its citizens in forms of tax credits or tax refunds to reimburse the added family expenses and to motivate the conservation activities. For example, the governments can provide tax breaks or reimbursements to citizens that makes use of timer switches to automatically turn on or off home electronics at specific time of the day. Furthermore, governments can provide incentives to citizens that contribute to recycling programs.
Secondly, efforts contributed to conservation of natural resources will not have immediate impact on civilization but are investments into future generations. Education is key factor to the success this investment; it is the responsibility of the governments to ensure its education system supplies the proper knowledge to our children. Furthermore, it is common that parents are influenced by the behavior and action of their children and are keen to a role model. Therefore, reform of education systems can also effectively distribute knowledge and benefits of natural resource conservation to the current generation.
Finally, conservation of natural resources is a global responsibility. It is the responsibility of the world's governments to collaborate on and agree to policies and reasonable goals. For instance, First World nations such as the United States are well developed and are in much better position to implement aggressive targets. On the other hand, Third World nations that are pre-industrial cannot be expected to implement strategies that would jeopardize its economic development. Clearly, the world's governments must evaluate the proper course of actions at the global level and implement policies applicable to its governing nation.
In summary, while there are arguments to be made for both sides, it is clear that the responsibility for the conservation of natural resources rests on the world's governments. Governments are in power to provide incentives, reform educational systems and determine global policies. Certainly, individual human beings are also responsible for conservation effort; however, the initiative is with the world's governments.
Re: Argument and Issue AWA. Please review and feedback? [#permalink]
16 Dec 2010, 13:54
Let me tackle the Argument essay first:
1) Your support paragraphs are phenomenal - really well organized and really well thought out...except for a few grammatical things (which don't detract from the readability, so fix them if you can but don't stress too much) this is about as well as you can write paragraphs 2-5.
2) I still think your intro and conclusion are a little generic and forced. Here's how I'd fix that:
-Keep your first sentence of each the same. -In your second sentence, mention one of your points from paragraphs 2-4, such as: "The argument makes a number of unsupported assumptions, most notably that the failure of previous restaurants is the result of specific failures and not something systematic about that location." -In your last sentence, include the overall argument as part of your conclusion. "Because of these assumptions, investors should do further research before planning a Classy steakhouse in this location."
What I'm getting at is that you really should have 2/3 of your sentences, at least, deal directly with the subject matter...otherwise it reads too much like a template. Like I mentioned in that other thread, you probably want to do your brainstorming before you start to write so that your intro can point ahead to a point you're going to make.
One other quick thing here - I'd be careful with the template you're using about a sentence like "...the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view...". That's a pretty strong statement and I don't know that you ever demonstrate that they "manipulate facts". I might soften that to "the argument includes a number of assumptions that make it difficult to accept at face value". The stronger your language, the more the reader expects scathing evidence against the argument...and I don't know that you can deliver to match that tone.