|
|
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.
27 Dec 2015, 01:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
PLease rate my essay
"In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities."
my essay:
While it may be true that city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a case devoting more money. It is easy to understand why few people use the riverside facilities, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to devote more money for riverside facilities.
It should be clear that the information in the survey came from how many people in the city. Have it been asked all the people in the city? Or just the people who are interested in water sport have been questioned? It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey are on doubt. For example if just few people have been asked then the survey cannot be validate. We just do not know. Unless the scope and the strata of the people that have been questioned is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used effectively back the author’s argument.
Additionally, the author implies that few people use the riverside facility, and use bad water condition as a reason for this issue. While there does not have any concrete connection between the water quality and the usage of the water. Maybe other reasons are playing role in this issue. May be the facilities to use for water sport are expensive and people cannot afford it. Maybe there is no any educated rescue team to help in emergencies and it makes people be reluctant about water sports. We do not know. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a comprehensive research about the reasons why people do not do water sport.
Building upon the implication that people have complains about water quality, the author suggests that the cleaning up the river will result in have a water with better quality. If the river is full of trashes and sediments, this may be true. But if the bad smell of the water is because of existence of some minerals in the river or because of some fishes, then cleaning up the river would not help in solving this problem. Consequently, devoting more money would be just waste of money. Regardless of whether the cleaning water is able to improve the quality of the water or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between using water and water quality.
Having a clean, beautiful river which is passing through the city often have positive consequences, would attract more tourism and increase the revenue of the city. For these reasons, city government may decide to devote more money to improve riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s arguments is not significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.
"In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities."
my essay:
While it may be true that city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a case devoting more money. It is easy to understand why few people use the riverside facilities, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to devote more money for riverside facilities.
It should be clear that the information in the survey came from how many people in the city. Have it been asked all the people in the city? Or just the people who are interested in water sport have been questioned? It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey are on doubt. For example if just few people have been asked then the survey cannot be validate. We just do not know. Unless the scope and the strata of the people that have been questioned is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used effectively back the author’s argument.
Additionally, the author implies that few people use the riverside facility, and use bad water condition as a reason for this issue. While there does not have any concrete connection between the water quality and the usage of the water. Maybe other reasons are playing role in this issue. May be the facilities to use for water sport are expensive and people cannot afford it. Maybe there is no any educated rescue team to help in emergencies and it makes people be reluctant about water sports. We do not know. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a comprehensive research about the reasons why people do not do water sport.
Building upon the implication that people have complains about water quality, the author suggests that the cleaning up the river will result in have a water with better quality. If the river is full of trashes and sediments, this may be true. But if the bad smell of the water is because of existence of some minerals in the river or because of some fishes, then cleaning up the river would not help in solving this problem. Consequently, devoting more money would be just waste of money. Regardless of whether the cleaning water is able to improve the quality of the water or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between using water and water quality.
Having a clean, beautiful river which is passing through the city often have positive consequences, would attract more tourism and increase the revenue of the city. For these reasons, city government may decide to devote more money to improve riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s arguments is not significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.
Moderators:
188 posts
