Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Given Kudos: 13
Location: United States (NY)
GPA: 3.89
Re: Experts:Ur 2 cents on this plz
[#permalink]
13 Jan 2013, 12:12
If 200 people protested in the rain, then it could have been 300 or 1000 in fine weather. You failed to mention rain in your response. Furthermore, usually only a fraction of those disagreeing would protest in the street. If rent control were eliminated in your building, would you approve? (Who would?) But would you protest? Most people wouldn't. 200 people protesting in the rain could well represent 20,000 disagreeing people.
It is not even clear why the argument focuses on the opinions of all renters throughout the city. Presumably, not all buildings were rent-controlled. If we are interested in the opinion of those renters who lived in rent-controlled buildings, then it is possible that there were only 200 of them, and all of them did protest.
Most importantly, what does it mean to say that "the elimination of rent control is not a problem"? It is not clear what the argument is asking. "You should not let the small protest discourage you" - but who are you? Who is making this decision? An elected official? A judge? There is no context given whatsoever. Of course, nobody likes to pay more, but what are the alternatives? Perhaps it is not financially feasible to keep the rent control any further, or perhaps it is.
COMMENTS ABOUT THE RESPONSE.
"First,the argument readily assumes that there are only 200 renters who protested about the rent control regulation." --- well, the argument presents it as given. Of course, the number could be wrong. It is possible that 5683 people protested and we simply have no information. However, let us use the numbers given in the problem statement. 200 people protested, period. "The argument by stating this fails to consider the time frame in which different set of renters could protest." - same thing. We are given that 200 renters protested and 19,800 did not, not that there was a crowd of size 200.
"Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors ,on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated." --- which key factors? Be specific.
"The conclusion relies upon assumption,for which there are no clear evidences." --- which assumptions? Be specific.
"Hence,the argument is rather weak,unconvincing,and has several flaws." --- which flaws? Be specific.
Are you making a distinction between assumptions, factors, and flaws? I feel these three phrases are just a part of your template, and the rest of your essay does not really outline all these factors, assumptions, and flaws. Also "weak, and unconvincing, and has several flaws" sounds out-of-proportion.
In fact, the argument is not that bad. From a practical point of view, imagine that you are some decision-making body. You decide that for one reason or another you really have to remove the rent control. You get 200 people protesting in the rain. Can you ignore them? YES! It may not be the wisest or the best choice, but in practice it is definitely possible to ignore 200 people protesting in the rain. It happens routinely all over the world. So, once again, the argument is not as weak as you are making it look.
"Furthermore,there could be a situation where in these 200 protesters represented all 20,000 renters." --- which situation? Be specific.
"Second,the argument assumes that the figure 19,800 protesters who stayed home and did not protest are with the elimination of rent control regulation." - definitely not. The argument assumes that for them the elimination of rent control is not a problem --- in other words, that they are neutral OR with the elimination OR slightly against it.
"Clearly,the statement that argument made is a stretch and an unsubstantiated one." --- which statement? Be specific.
"Argument by stating this fails to consider other important aspects like surveying of renters who did not make to the protest..." --- technically speaking, surveying is not an ASPECT. It is a possible action or approach, not an aspect or a factor. Furthermore, "who did not make it to the protest" cannot describe the entire 19,800 renters since this expression assumes that they wanted to come, but were unable to, perhaps because of the rain or other circumstances. Once again, we cannot say that 19,800 renters did not make it to the protest. Those who "did not make it to the protest" are by definition against the elimination of rent control regulation.
"Implicitly,the argument is weak for the above stated reasons." - why "Implicitly"? Why not "accidentally" or "explicitly" or "clearly" or "besides"?
"It could be strengthened if author gave proper examples proving that the renters who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters." --- how can EXAMPLES prove that those who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters?
Also, if indeed 200 were against and 19,800 with the move, how does it justify the conclusion? In a sense, even one person protesting means there is a problem, doesn't it?