AWA Score: 5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of idea and expression from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analysed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs is evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocaubulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word-usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good luck
ukc1998 wrote:
Please evaluate this essay, point out the errors and suggest me the required corrections and ideas to improve myself in essay-writing.
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 claims that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that the population has decreased and the unemployment has increased in the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city, whereas the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya. State3d in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument also fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hencxe, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the mayor Varro was responsible for the increased population and the decreased unemployment during his service, and the mayor Montoya is responsible for the decreased population and the increased unemployment during his service. On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that the mayor of a city has a profound impact on the population and the unemployment. On the other hand, many such changes occur in the long-term. For example, it is possible that the result of the service provided by any other mayor was reflected during Varro's service, and the result of the service provided by the mayor Montoya would reflect after four years of his own service. Clearly, the facts prsented in the argument mislead us to arrive at a conclusion. So, these facts cannot be viewed as the evidence. The argument could have been much clearer if it had provided a strong evidence why the service provided by Varro caused the increased population and the decreased unemployment, and not the service provided by any other mayor.
Second, the argument readily assumes that the population has decreased and the unemployment has increased in in the first four years that Montoya has served and, therefore, the residents should vote him out of office. However, there are several reasons why this claim cannot be taken at face value. There can be other externalities that may have the biggest impact on the population and the unemployment. For example, the recent pandemic, COVID-19 has adversely affected population and unemloyment in many countries. Moreover, it is possible that the mayor Montoya has better policies that allow the city to grow even faster than under Varro. And finally, it is possible that the focus over population and unemployment may not be the need of the time. Instead environmental actions and control over corruption may be more urgent. If the argument had provided evidence supported its assertions, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. Hence, the argument is disputed and indefensible. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author would have provided all the sufficient and necessary information to support the claim. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.