Rate my first AWA - any comments welcomed!

hello,

i suggest you follow this structure. if properly applied you will guarantee a high score:

1. General Structure
Intro - Restate argument, point out flaws or state intention to discuss them below
1st Para - First,...
2nd Para - Second/In addition,...
3rd Para - Third/Finally,...
Conclusion - The argument is flawed/weak/unconvincing because of the above -mentioned...Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened if/by...



2. Structural Word (should be all over the essays)
1. Supporting examples - for example, to illustrate, for instance, because, specifically
2. Additional support - furthermore, in addition, similarly, just as, also, as a result, moreover
3. Importance - surely, truly, undoubtedly, clearly, in fact, most importantly
4. Contrast - on the contrary, yet, despite, rather, instead, however, although, while
5. Decide against - one cannot deny that, it could be argued that, granted, admittedly
6. Ying-yang - on the one hand/on the other hand
7. Concluding - therefore, in summary, consequently, hence, in conclusion, ultimately, in closing
8. 3. Templates
9. Intro:
The argument claims that ....(restate)
Stated in this way the argument:
a) manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation
b) reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology
c) 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. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.

1st Para:
First, the argument readily assumes that......
This statement is a stretch....
For example,...
Clearly,...
The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that...

2nd Para:
Second, the argument claims that....
This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between....and...
To illustrate,...
While,...
However,....indeed....
In fact, it is not at all clear...rather....
If the argument had provided evidence that.....then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

3rd Para:
Finally,...
(pose some questions for the argument).....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.

Conclusion:
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....
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case....
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

DisciplinedPrep Could you see mine??
The installation of electronic, high-speed scanning devices at the entrances and exits of toll roads will obviate the need for toll booths. Automobiles will have scanner sensitive license plates- like the bar codes on consumer packaged products- so that the scanner devices will record the license number of cars entering and exiting the toll road. Car owners will be billed monthly by the highway authorities.

Discuss how logically persuasive you find the above argument. In presenting your point of view, analyze the sort of reasoning used and supporting evidence. In addition, state what further evidence, if any, would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.





In the argument, the author persuades us to see that the installation of electronic, high-speed scanning devices at the entrances and exits of the toll roads will obviate the need for toll booths. As automobiles will have scanner sensitive license plates - like bar codes on consumer products- so that the devices installed will record the license number of cars entering and exiting the toll road and car owners would be billed on a monthly basis by highway authorities.The argument, however convincing is based on certain logical fallacies.

Firstly, by assuming that by installing the high-speed scanning devices, the need for toll booths would be obviated, is clearly not justified by support of additional data to support the argument. Perhaps the booth will still be needed to keep the records of the ongoing traffic and to keep track of the vehicles scanned. Merely installing the devices does not justify the removal of the toll booths because technology, no matter how advanced, has a chance of failure atleast once in a specific period of time. For example, as many of us see in daily life that the bar codes in supermarkets are sometimes hard to scan, and it takes several attempts to scan one at time. However, author has in no way justified that the devices so installed would be highly accurate.

In addition to this, author fails to take into account the speed limit on which the devices installed would work. It is not very practical to believe that a high speed scanning device could work at vehicles moving at a speed more than the speed for which it is tested. For instance, it is possible that the device was installed to scan the vehicles moving at a speed of 45 km per hour, but the vehicles can move at a variable speed on the highway. Author not only fails to consider the above scenario but also fails to provide specific information relevant to the argument. By mentioning that the devices can work upto the maximum speed limit permitted, the argument could be supported well.

Moreover, as, author fails to address that the number plates that would be installed on the cars are not duplicable. The argument is vulnerable to criticism. For example, the author takes for granted the chance that people might replace the number plates with a different one just in order to avoid the monthly fees by highway authorities. Many such cases would go missing and the authorities would not be able to catch the culprits. And even if they do so, it might add to the expense which can surpass the amount saved by removing the toll booths.

In conclusion, it is clear that the author fails to take into account various factors essential to support the argument, as discussed above. The author's argument could be strengthened if the author provides specific details on the functions of the high speed scanning device, such as, the speed limit, cost effectiveness, maintenance period, accuracy percentage etc, so that it could be weighed against the expense of toll booths operation. Also, if the author had considered the possible constructs of human mind such as duplicating the number plates, perhaps the conclusion might be different. But failure to provide such details makes the argument vulnerable to criticism.

I think everything is fine. You are doing good.