|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
poojaarora1818
Joined: 30 Jul 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,543
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3,423
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Economics
Schools: Duke '26 Haas '26 Kelley '26 Kellogg '26 McDonough '26
GPA: 3
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Products:
04 Sep 2020, 03:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can someone please evaluate my essay. I would appreciate if someone please spent their precious time to evaluate my essay.
The following appeared as part of an article in a popular arts-leisure magazine:
“The safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are becoming far too strict. The surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. But doing so means that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design—merely because of the strictness of these safety codes.”
Discuss how well reasoned..etc
The above argument states that the safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are so strict. The argument further stretches by telling that for the architects and builders it become a way move difficult in order to meet the minimum requirements established by these codes in order to construct buildings. And if they abide by the same codes then there will be very low technological innovation within the industry which leads to little evolution of architectural styles and design. The author makes the several assumptions in the argument which leave the conclusion weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if the architectures and builders follow safety codes then it would be difficult for them to construct a building. However, this may not be so. The fact is the construction of the building is not solely dependent on these factors whereas other factors are being ignored. For example, the design and construction as integrated. Locational conditions such as labor supply, weather may have an immense impact on it.
Secondly, the author states that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry which is completely invalid. There are other factors that should be consider by the designer at the construction site like friendly neighborhood, type of ground soil, shape & size, natural light and air. All these above factors were ignored by the author that play important role in the construction process.
Lastly, the author cannot arrive at the conclusion that little evolution of architectural styles and design—merely because of the strictness of these safety codes. The author should consider other factors too which are required in order to construct a building.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to access the merits of certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared as part of an article in a popular arts-leisure magazine:
“The safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are becoming far too strict. The surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. But doing so means that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design—merely because of the strictness of these safety codes.”
Discuss how well reasoned..etc
The above argument states that the safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are so strict. The argument further stretches by telling that for the architects and builders it become a way move difficult in order to meet the minimum requirements established by these codes in order to construct buildings. And if they abide by the same codes then there will be very low technological innovation within the industry which leads to little evolution of architectural styles and design. The author makes the several assumptions in the argument which leave the conclusion weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if the architectures and builders follow safety codes then it would be difficult for them to construct a building. However, this may not be so. The fact is the construction of the building is not solely dependent on these factors whereas other factors are being ignored. For example, the design and construction as integrated. Locational conditions such as labor supply, weather may have an immense impact on it.
Secondly, the author states that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry which is completely invalid. There are other factors that should be consider by the designer at the construction site like friendly neighborhood, type of ground soil, shape & size, natural light and air. All these above factors were ignored by the author that play important role in the construction process.
Lastly, the author cannot arrive at the conclusion that little evolution of architectural styles and design—merely because of the strictness of these safety codes. The author should consider other factors too which are required in order to construct a building.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to access the merits of certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
