GRADE MY ESSAY PLEASE :)

Hey everyone! I take the GMAT in about a week. This is my first full practice essay. I didn't get a chance to edit it, and I feel that it's alright, but some of my points overlap a little bit. Please let me know how to improve!!!

Best,

Scott

"In order to earn the most money for supplemental school programs, we will have larger and more thrilling rides at this year's School Fair, including a ferris wheel that is twice as tall as last year's ferris wheel. In addition, the game vendors will award more expensive prizes and the food stalls will showcase a variety of upscale international dishes. As a result, we will be able to charge a higher entrance fee and the dollar amount we earn via our commission on the vendors' revenues will be higher than it was last year."

This argument claims that increasing the number of thrilling rides, extravagant prizes and amenities, while charging a higher entrance fee will earn the most money for a supplemental school program. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which is could be evaluated. The conclusion of this argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing, and has several flaws. In addition, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation.

First, the argument readily assumes that community members (parent, teacher, student) will be able to afford and be willing to pay the higher entrance fee. This statement is a stretch because if they school is already struggling to support their own supplemental school programs, couldn’t this be due to a lack of financial support from the community surrounding the school. It makes much more sense that a community member would directly donate to the cause if they had the necessary funds. The argument doesn’t state which type of setting the school is located within as well. If this were a Title I school, it should be assumed that most parents do not have the financial ability to support the school’s supplementary program, let alone attend a pricy event. The argument also doesn’t state whom they expect to attend the event, leaving the ability to predict who is able to pay the entrance fee up in the air. If the argument would have provided more evidence surrounding the context of the school and the expecting attendees of the event, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Second, the argument states that they will be able to earn the most money through the dollar amount they earn via their commission on the vendor’s revenues being higher than last year. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate how much revenue they earned from the previous year. There is no way to compare whether this is an effective way to “earn more” money because we do not have the revenue made from the previous year. In addition, just because they revenues are higher, that does not mean the school will actually make a larger profit. The thrilling rides, and upscale dishes should cost the organizers of the event a lot of money, in which again the argument fails to provide adequate information. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave said how much revenue was made from the previous year, in addition to data surrounding how the amount of revenue expected will exceed the expected costs in order to officially “earn more” money for the supplemental school program.

Finally, the author fails to explain whether or not the community will actually enjoy the proposed enhancements of the event. There is no evidence that the community will want to attend the event due to making the Ferris wheel twice as large, or that they will even enjoy the upscale international dishes. If the community is specifically from an Hindu and/or Muslim faith, they could restricted to a number of the upscale international dishes. What type of food is going to be served? Does the Ferris wheel look safe, or does it appear dangerous? Is the even happening at night, or during the day? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts surrounding the context of the community, statistical data surrounding costs and the revenues made from the commissions of the vendors in the previous year, and more description surrounding enhancements. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.