Requesting you to rate my AWA essay. Thanks in advance :D
[#permalink]
21 Sep 2016, 05:22
Q.
"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 designs - merely because of the strictness of these safety codes."
A.
The argument that the evolution and advancement in construction of public buildings is being hindered merely by the strictness of the safety codes governing it is unsubstantial and presents weak evidences to support its claims.
The introductory line illustrates that the safety codes of these buildings are becoming "far too strict". The author however fails to explain what exactly does he mean by "far too strict". Are these codes becoming strict in terms of the design structures permissible or are they becoming strict in terms of the construction methodology to be followed or does it merely relate to an increase in legal requirements that are to be adhered to thereby only substantially increasing paperwork in contrast to the actual process.
The writer then goes on to say that the "surest" way to conform to the safety codes is by using the materials and methods currently allowed. He fails to acknowledge that even though the currently allowed materials and methods are the surest ways to conform to the codes, there are other materials and methods that can fall under the ambit of these codes. There is a possibility that materials and methods, not as widely practiced as others are present, and that may gain traction and visibility on furtherance of these codes.
He also highlights that the resultant situation would be an industry with "very little technological innovation" and "little evolution of architectural style and design". This argument is logically flawed as the restriction of safety codes encompasses primarily material and method. If anything, these restrictions might open up avenues of increased technological innovation in the materials that are already in use. Contrary to the author's beliefs, it may actually steer innovation. He also brings about a causal relationship between technological innovation and architectural style design but without any evidence to support the same. Design, usually, is independent of the technological advancement in a field and is a separate aspect in the construction of a building. Technological advancement may help in improving the effectiveness of a few designs but in no way do they affect evolution in design.
The writer is vague is his explanation of the relationship between safety codes, technological innovation and design evolution and does not cite any relevant examples, explanations or evidence in furtherance to his claims. This helps conclude that the argument is weak and flawed.