Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
05 Feb 2017, 13:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello guys/gals, please rate my analysis of this argument from the OG15:
Pg 816 of OG 2015
“It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver’s license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another driving test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year-olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unexpected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly.”
The argument that 15-year-olds should be eligible for their driver’s license is dependent upon flawed underlying assumptions and cited evidence that is not entirely relevant. Peppered within the argument is vague language that, as will be discussed below, could be more direct and in turn would create a more convincing argument. The author also relates weakly linked topics together such as renewing a driver’s license and acquiring a new license.
The author states that “far older” people can “often” renew their driver’s license, which is vague language that demands further elaboration. If the author had been more specific about the age group, and how comparing that group to 15-year-olds is relevant, the argument could have been strengthened. Further, the author could have presented data on how frequently older patrons could renew their driver’s license without taking a driver’s test. As it stands, drawing a relationship between renewing older people’s licenses and issuing 15-year-olds new licenses is flawed.
Next, the author cites physical advantages that 15-year-olds have over older people. Here again, a more strict definition of the age group of “older people” would be valuable. Nevertheless, simply citing the physical attributes of 15-year-olds omits an arguably more important aspect of driving: maturity. If the author had addressed the mental development of 15-year-olds and their propensity to participate in risky behavior by presenting counter evidence, the argument would have been more convincing.
Additionally, driving does not require an advanced set of physical attributes such as reaction time or injury recovery speed. Although these attributes can certainly be helpful in an emergency situation, this evidence is weak. One could argue that understanding road signs and laws of driving is more important than the superiority of a few physical abilities.
The lack of evidence (or counterevidence) paired with vague language creates a weak argument. The author is grasping for straws in the current state of the argument and without elaboration of a few points along with more relevant information, the argument falls flat.
Pg 816 of OG 2015
“It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver’s license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another driving test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year-olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unexpected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly.”
The argument that 15-year-olds should be eligible for their driver’s license is dependent upon flawed underlying assumptions and cited evidence that is not entirely relevant. Peppered within the argument is vague language that, as will be discussed below, could be more direct and in turn would create a more convincing argument. The author also relates weakly linked topics together such as renewing a driver’s license and acquiring a new license.
The author states that “far older” people can “often” renew their driver’s license, which is vague language that demands further elaboration. If the author had been more specific about the age group, and how comparing that group to 15-year-olds is relevant, the argument could have been strengthened. Further, the author could have presented data on how frequently older patrons could renew their driver’s license without taking a driver’s test. As it stands, drawing a relationship between renewing older people’s licenses and issuing 15-year-olds new licenses is flawed.
Next, the author cites physical advantages that 15-year-olds have over older people. Here again, a more strict definition of the age group of “older people” would be valuable. Nevertheless, simply citing the physical attributes of 15-year-olds omits an arguably more important aspect of driving: maturity. If the author had addressed the mental development of 15-year-olds and their propensity to participate in risky behavior by presenting counter evidence, the argument would have been more convincing.
Additionally, driving does not require an advanced set of physical attributes such as reaction time or injury recovery speed. Although these attributes can certainly be helpful in an emergency situation, this evidence is weak. One could argue that understanding road signs and laws of driving is more important than the superiority of a few physical abilities.
The lack of evidence (or counterevidence) paired with vague language creates a weak argument. The author is grasping for straws in the current state of the argument and without elaboration of a few points along with more relevant information, the argument falls flat.
05 Feb 2017, 13:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Good one I like it, would like to see the comments on that 
07 Feb 2017, 15:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
brewtan
I would say your writing ability is sufficient to get 6/6 in AWA, given that you wrote that under 30 minutes. The word count is low though (only 330), MGMAT recommends 400+ words for a 6/6. In terms of your writing, I would suggest these few changes.
Intro is good (i wouldn't write it in the same manner but i don't see you losing points for it). I would instead put it:
Author makes the argument that X should be Y on the basis of Z. The argument is based on the assumption physical attributes are a sufficient condition for getting a driver's license. This argument is flawed on the basis of this assumption because it equates driving ability with physical attributes. This is a false equivalence because it compares physical attributes with a much more important consideration for driving, mental maturity. I will demonstrate in more detail in the next few paragraphs how this argument is flawed and can be strengthened.
, which is vague language that demands further elaboration. This is more of a grammar error, but which is referring to the noun driver's license so you are basically saying that Driver's license is vague and needs to be clarified LOL.
If the author had been more specific about the age group, and how comparing that group to 15-year-olds is relevant, the argument could have been strengthened. This is a good point that needs to be discussed in more detail. For ex: why does author think age is a factor here, age has no basis for driving ability. We could someone with perfect vision, physical ability but horrible at following instruction or rules (criminal), would we give that person a license? Is physical attributes the main criteria for giving someone a license? If so why stop at 15 years old? Why not 12 or 10 years old? Author's obv missing an important point here that we require a certain amount of maturity and it has nothing to do with physical attributes. We obv don't want blind people driving but you only need a certain amount of vision to drive.
The lack of evidence (or counterevidence) paired with vague language creates a weak argument. I don't think there's any vague language, or any counter evidence. There's simply a really bad argument here. The weakness of the argument is not based on vagueness of the language but the sheer illogic of the author.
The author is grasping for straws in the current state of the argument and without elaboration of a few points along with more relevant information, the argument falls flat. I don't think the author is grasping for straws, thats a very specific idiom with a specific meaning that doesn't apply in this situation. I think the argument is just bad, and illogical but the author is not grasping for straws at this point yet.....
Hope this helps! Overall very well written. 5/6 but you should have no problem getting 6/6. Kudos if it helps!
