AWA Essay Evaluation
[#permalink]
12 Jun 2017, 11:52
Hi! I need some insight into how i can improve my AWA essay.
Here is a sample that i attempted. Kindly provide some tips for improvement.
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
My Essay:
"The argument states that the government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes in order to make railroads a primary medium of transportation for businesses to deliver goods. The argument further states the other incentives of using railroads for transportation of goods as opposed to highways citing the low fuel usage by trains when compared to trucks. The argument also claims that the current rail lines can be used to accommodate the increase in the rail traffic, thereby saving taxpayers' money. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider key factors that would help to evaluate it better. While the argument does seem logical at the surface, there are several factors that serve to undermine the conclusion of the argument.
First, the argument states that railroads are more cost effective and environmentally friendly when compared with the highways. While the argument does cite the advantage of using railroads, it does not include the incentive of using trucks on highways. To illustrate, the trucks can be used to make door to door delivery thereby writing off the cost and energy that would go into collecting the goods from the train stations. Another advantage is the lower rather the lack of paperwork involved in sending goods by trucks as opposed to trains. The argument could have been more convincing if it had provided incentives of using highways for delivery. The inclusion of this information could have made the argument more cogent.
Second, the argument claims that the government should reduce the taxes on railroad companies in order to boost deliveries via railroads. This is again a flawed claim because the argument fails to take into account the the fact that this money obtained from the railroad companies is used by the government for maintaining the rail lines. Furthermore the argument states that the surge in rail traffic will not affect the current rail lines without providing any statistical data proving that this increased pressure on the rail lines will not affect safety standards. For instance, under the current moderate traffic, the rail lines are functioning well, however, with increase in traffic and no changes in maintenance, the rail lines might give way and not be able to function well. If the argument had provided evidence to support its claim about the increased rail traffic not affecting the current rail lines, it could have been more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the reasons stated above. Without complete knowledge of all the contributing factors, it is difficult to arrive at a logical conclusion. If the argument had also stated the incentives of using the highways and the empirical data regarding the current rail traffic and rail lines, it could have been more convincing. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated."