openbox1 wrote:
Wow, just realized that you're going to take the test on the 10th, same as me!
Arck, ignore most of what I've said, you're not going to make big changes in 2 days, and don't get hang up on the minor details I pointed out.
Just be a little more careful of grammar, especially since you studied so hard for the verbal. Good luck and all the best! Hope you get your dream score.
Hey openbox1 ..
I really appreciate your feedback.. something is better that nothing u c !!
I will try to incorporate whatever I can .. To be frank, I am not even thinking of scoring a 6 .. I am just thinking of writing !!
Well, I just finished my last mock (
MGMAT 6).. it was a long 1 along with AWA ... (read ur post after the attempt though)
Can you put in your comments on this one and rate it on a scale of 1-6
Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a science magazine:
“The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument claims that the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020 since the space race of 1960's between the USA and Russia yielded a tremendous number of technological advances that lead to humanitarian and economic benefits. Stated in this way the argument reveals poor reasoning, ill-defined terminology, and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. In drawing the conclusion, the author relies on vague terms. Further more, the author assumes that whatever has been true in the past will be true in the future too.
First, the author states his opinion and quantifies the benefits using the word "many". Clearly, this is a sign of weak evidence. What if, the economic and humanitarian benefits only helped 10% of the population and caused ill-effects for almost 30% of the population. Further, the author states that benefits have more than paid for the money spent during the space race. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. On the basis of this weak evidence the author draws a very strong conclusion and uses the word "should", making his opinion a moral compulsion for the government.
Second, the author readily assumes, based on the past results, that the manned Mars landing will also will be beneficial for the economy and humanity and hence, should be considered in the budget. This is a fatal error as the author fails to compare the scenario in 1960 with that of today's era. It could be possible that in 1960, the need of the hour was to develop better technology, however, now the need is to focus on unemployment, education, and other social issues. The assumption is unsubstantiated and has no legs to stand on.
Finally, the author fails to mention explicit cases in which the advances have balanced out the money spent on space race. Without convincing cases and examples, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather facts.
The argument could be strengthened by quantifying the benefits and providing examples of long lasting impacts on the economy and humanity. Furthermore, it could also be strengthened by citing estimated positive impacts of manned Mars landing in future. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Issues
ESSAY QUESTION:
“People should be strictly prohibited from using their cellular phones in public places where their conversations could disturb others: on the bus, at a restaurant, or in a museum.”
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The issue of using the cellular phones in public places is a contentious one. While each side has its strengths and weaknesses, I believe that allowing people to talk on the phone takes precedence over prohibiting them from using it in public places because not using the cellular phones in public places directly goes against the purpose of carrying a phone and defies the very reason they have become so popular. Furthermore, prohibiting the usage of mobile phones in public places is similar to invading personal space of a citizen and denying the right to freedom.
First, people carry cellular phones to enable them to stay in touch with their friends and family, and handle their professional/business engagements and other personal commitments. A cellular phone is like a boon to a person in case of an emergency. For instance, consider a person who works out of town and daily travels almost 50 miles to his office by a bus. One day, his house catches a fire as soon as he leaves, and his neighbors want to inform him. However, since this person travels by a bus, on which he is not allowed to take calls, he cant pick up their call and their effort to reach him turns futile. The moment, he gets off the bus, he is informed of the unfortunate incident, but it's too late already for him and he has suffered substantial financial loss. Isn't this an attack on his very right to exist?
Second, mobile phones these days comes with multiple features that can help the cause of 'Do not disturb' as stated in the statement. A phone could be put on vibration mode to avoid a sudden loud ring from disturbing others. Furthermore, the efficient speakers in the mobile phones enable a user to speak slowly and still clearly convey his/her thoughts to the other end. For instance, blue-tooth hands free technology enable a user to plug a small device on his ear and talk on the phone smoothly without causing any nuisance.
Some may argue that public places such as bus, restaurant, or a museum are not meant for cellular phones. This point is flawed, since people are free to pursue their self-interests as long as they do not affect others.
In summary, the opinion that people should be prohibited from using their cellular phones in public places is flawed. It only leads to denial of the very purpose of keeping the mobile phones and defies the right to freedom.
Thanks again !! Good luck to you too for the test ..
Cheers!!