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:
Please rate my AWA [#permalink]
23 Aug 2013, 02:41
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper: "In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro." Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The Argument that residents would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected varro fails to mention several key factors on basis of which it could be evaluated.The conclusion of argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, The argument claims under Montoya who served after varro the population of city decreased and unemployment increased. This claim is an example of poor reasoning and argument has no concrete evidence to show that decrease in population and increase in unemployment was caused by Montoya serving as the mayor. For example increase in unemployment rate could be a result of economic downturn or trends that hit the San Perdito during the tenure of Montoya in contrast with Varro’s period, which enjoyed economic stability and growth. Another reason could be that Varro, who served before Montoya, set the stage for unemployment and decrease in population that the city is now facing. Without considering these facts the argument cannot be evaluated to what exactly led to increase in employment rate. The argument could have been strengthened if it showed a correlation between unemployment and economic conditions that prevailed during the concerned years.
Second, The argument claims that two businesses have closed for each business that opened. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. For instance it could be that varro’s administration was biased towards certain businesses and framed policies that resulted in huge losses for other businesses that they eventually closed during Montoya’s period. So without any convincing evidence the argument conveys a distorted view of situation and is poor reasoned.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. If it included more relevant facts and factors that led to the current state of San Perdito it could be better substantiated and evaluated.
Re: Please rate my AWA [#permalink]
24 Aug 2013, 12:10
This essay gets a 3.
It does point out the major flaws in the argument--that the downturn could be due to external factors, or due to the aftereffects of Varro's policies years later. However, your organization meanders; you don't clearly organize your ideas. In addition, you need to proofread more; watch your capitalization, and make sure you're using commas properly.