Replacing the Mathescam Bridge, which links Ottenville with Tottenvill

Question

The argument claims that replacing the Mathescam Bridge instead of repairing it will unjustly hurt drivers as the replacement cost will result in increased tolls. Stated in this way, the argument fails to account for several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument relies on several assumptions for which thereis no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.

First, the author readily assumes that the only problems with the bridge are the problems that drivers have been complaining mainly about. This is statement is a stretch and does not take into account other problems that may require the bridge to be replaced instead of repaired. For example, there may be a fundamental problem with the structural integrity of the bridge, threatening the lives of all drivers, yet a few drivers know about this. In this case, the author's argument does not hold. The argument could have been much clearer if the author explicitly stated that uneven pavement and closed lanes were the only problems with the bridge.

Second, the author also claims that the planned replacement will hurt drivers because bridge tolls will be raised to cover the replacement cost. This is again a weak and unconvincing claim. The author does not consider the effect of repairing the bridge and the cost it entails on the tolls. Clearly, repairing the bridge will have a cost and this cost may be covered by raising tolls. For instance, the Authority may need to raise tolls by 40 percent to repair the bridge, in which case drivers may have preferred to have tolls raised by 50 percent if the bridge were replaced completely. If the author had provided evidence that if the bridge is repaired, tolls will not be raised, the argument could have been much stronger.

Finally, the author concludes with the recommendation to repair the existing bridge, mainly in late evenings, as there are usually fewer drivers on the road. However, this recommedation does not take into account that if the Mathescam Bridge is the only link between Ottenville and Tottenville, all night traffic will be hampered. The author also does not provide evidence that there are fewer drivers using the bridge in the evening; rather relying on a simple generalization.

In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. It could have been made stronger had the author accounted for all the relevant factors. Without evidence to address these issues, one is left with idea that the argument is based more on wishful thanking rather than substantive evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I scored 3 on PR AWA. I read on the forum that PR's algorithms are not accurate, but is it really that bad?

Here are the comments on my essay:

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. 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 are 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: 4/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary 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

rubytang · Answer

Please help rate!  Sajjad1994

The author claims that repairing the Mathescam Bridge is a better option than replacing it, due to the proposed higher bridge tolls hurting drivers and that the main bridge issues are repairable. Stated in this way, the argument conveys a distorted view of the situation and presents numerous examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no credible evidence; hence, the argument is unpersuasive.

Firstly, the argument that the bridge replacement hurts drivers due to increased toll rates is unfounded. The argument is based on an assumption that the Ottenville mayor's recommendations will be accepted. In any city, the mayor, while powerful, still requires approvals from other stakeholders in a building project. In fact, the mayor is likely not the person whose role it is to decide on toll rates - this is likely done after experts thoroughly review traffic patterns and consult knowledgeable parties. The mayor's recommendation is unlikely to stick. Also, no information is given about the current toll rates and the citizens' capacity to pay them. Say, for instance, the toll is extremely low at 0.01 cents per section in a city where the disposable income is extremely high; then, even an increase of 50% would likely not make a tangible impact on peoples' wallets. Given these concerns, the author's point that the recommended toll rate of a new bridge would negatively affect drivers does not have legs to stand on. To make this point concrete, we would need proof that the recommended increase is legitimately taking place, and that the rates would become unaffordable to many.

Secondly, the arthor takes several erroneous leaps in his plan to repair the bridge. To begin, the idea of shifting maintenance crews to late evenings is not well thought out. Not only would the city have to pay overtime to workers, we have no information on the efficiency and effectiveness of nighttime construction. We also know that generally nighttime driving is seen as more dangerous due to limited visibility, so any accidents that may be caused by nighttime construction likely would have more severe consequences to both the driver and the construction workers. Additionally, many complaints have been filed about closed lanes - the author failed to consider that repairs will result in even more of them, whereas a new bridge could be in construction alongside the old bridge, never causing any additional closures. For these reasons, the author's point of the old bridge could easily be repaired suffers from several gaps in logic, and is therefore baseless.

Finally, the argument leaves out answers to important questions. Is the proposed level of toll rates affordable for drivers? What is the cost of repairing the current bridge? What is the level of usage satisfaction we can expect from drivers on a new bridge versus a repaired bridge? With so many uncertainties, the reader is left with the impression that the author's plan is more of a wishful thinking than a substantive conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is severely flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. The author leaves many unanswered questions, on which the merits of the argument can be judged. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader lacks the information needed to evaluate the author's plan. As it stands, the argument is weak and the conclusion unconvincing.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 4.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 2.5/5   
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are 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: 5/5  
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary 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

rubytang · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994 , I rewrote my essay - could you please regrade?

The author argues that repairing the Mathescam Bridge is a better option than replacing it, due to two reasons. First, the new bridge’s proposed tolls would hurt drivers, and second, the main issues of the bridge are repairable. This argument suffers from many logical fallacies: it manipulates facts, presents a warped view of the situation, and relies on several leaps of faith. The conclusion of the argument is based on many assumptions for which there are no credible evidence; thus, I find it unpersuasive.

To begin, the argument’s claim that the new building project will unjustly impair drivers due to the 50% increase in tolls requires a reality check. The author’s voiced his main critique about the mayor’s recommendation of a toll raise, but failed to consider whether the mayor has the authority to actually implement it. In fact, it seems plausible that while a mayor can make a recommendation, it is in the city building authority’s domain to approve projects and set toll rates, after thoroughly considering relevant factors such as traffic patterns and disposable income levels. Another issue the argument has is the failure to properly account for the dollar increase in tolls. Say, for instance, the bridge is currently priced much lower than other toll roads in the very wealthy city. Then, even a 50% increase in rates would not have a tangible impact on citizens’ ability to enjoy the bridge. If there was evidence that the mayor’s recommendation would be implemented and the financial implications negatively impact drivers, then perhaps we would be a bit more concerned about the rate increase.

Secondly, the argument makes baseless assumptions regarding the fixability of the current bridge. Though the main complaints have been uneven pavement and closed lanes, we have no information about what the real issue is. For example, if the bridge has foundational problems and is at risk of collapsing, then the defect is much larger than a simple repair. For analysis of whether the bridge can be fixed, it is more appropriate to consult expert advice rather than solely listen to user complaints. Furthermore, even if we take for granted that bumpy pavement and closed lanes are the only concerns, repairs still may not be the best course of action. Replacing uneven pavement would result in even more lane closures, and shifting maintenance crews to evenings may make the project more expensive, adversely affecting the quality and speed of construction. To make his argument more convincing, the author would have benefitted from providing credible proof that the bridge only has minor issues and that repairs would not severely impact traffic flow during construction.

Lastly, the author has left many questions unanswered. Most importantly, what is the cost of a repair project? The argument has relied on the assumption that a $12 million replacement is financially infeasible, but there are no facts to support this claim. Whether the repair or the replacement would cost more to drivers is a critical part of the analysis of the pros and cons of each. Another piece of information the readers are missing is expert advice on the problems with the current bridge - it is vital to know whether repairing the bridge is a technically sound plan based on scientific evidence. Without these pieces of information, the reader is left with the impression that the plan is more of a wishful thinking than a substantive conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is untenable for the above-mentioned reasons and thus it is unconvincing. It could have been significantly strengthened if the author conveyed all relevant facts to back up each step in judgement, such as the cost of repairs. To weigh the merits of this decision, the reader requires more information and rigorous proof. Without it, the conclusion remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5  
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are 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: 4.5/5  
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary 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

jaskaranjaggi1234 · Answer

In the passage, the writer argues that it would be more beneficial to repair the bridge instead of replacing it. This is based on the premise that the bridge toll was raised by 50 percent just before the new bridge's proposal and that the drivers' main complaint is uneven pavement that can be repaired. However, on a deeper analysis, it becomes apparent that certain relevant factors have not been taken into consideration, leading to mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.

One such flaw is that what the drivers require is not an exhaustive list of needs that the bridge authority needs to pertain to. There could be other factors at play, unknown to the common commuter, that could have played a part in making the decision. The structural integrity of the bridge may be compromised and beyond repair, requiring a new bridge altogether. This could be rectified by painting a more holistic picture by justifying the bridge authority's side of the story and why they felt the need for such a measure.

The writer also failed to do a detailed analysis of the financial budgeting required for repairing and replacing the bridge. The bridge tolls being raised before the announcement might be a coincidence rather than a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead of speculating, a more detailed analysis of why the rates were hiked should have been presented. The balance sheet for the cost of repairing and replacing the bridge could have been presented to explain the higher costs incurred and eventually link them to the bridge tolls being raised.

After a closer analysis, it is apparent that there are several logical flaws in the passage presented. The recommendations in the passage show how the argument can be strengthened and made more logically sound.

Replacing the Mathescam Bridge, which links Ottenville with Tottenvill

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards