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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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 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 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.
15 Nov 2023, 09:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks in advance for evaluating my essay!
The following appeared in an article in a college departmental newsletter:
“Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do nine out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation.”
My answer:
The argument claims that the model of foreign language instruction at Jones University is superior to that of other universities. Stated in this way, it fails to consider several key factors that could call the conclusion into question, and it relies on questionable evidence. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and has significant flaws.
First, we do not know anything about the students from the 25 other colleges whose speaking skills were tested at the time of their graduation. It’s possible that these students started from a different baseline than the Jones University students. For example, if the non-Jones students did not have any experience or instruction in a particular language prior to college and the Jones students did, then the non-Jones students would be starting at a lower level. This information is important to know because it would allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of Jones University’s program. If the argument had provided more context about the students in question, a more accurate and telling comparison could have been made.
Secondly, it is not clear what models of foreign language instruction the other 25 schools were using. If any of these schools also had the same model as Jones - 10 weeks of intensive training followed by a study abroad program - then it could indicate that the differences in performance levels between Jones students and non-Jones students is not due to the instruction model but rather some other factor. Similarly, if there were any other meaningful differences in the characteristics of the schools, such as foreign language class size and quality of faculty, then this may also have affected students’ performance regardless of the instruction model. The argument could have been strengthened if it explained whether the instruction model was the only difference between the schools.
Additionally, the argument is assuming its own definition of the word superiority. They are assuming that higher fluency in students’ speaking equates to a superior instruction model. However, it’s possible a more holistic definition is warranted, such as one that includes levels in reading, writing, and listening. In an extreme case, Jones students could indeed be quite fluent in speaking but are entirely illiterate. This would definitely cast doubt on whether the instruction model is superior. The argument can thus be viewed as biased due to its self-given designation of having the “superior” instruction model.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of its faulty evidence, biased definitions, and lack of necessary information about key characteristics of the schools and students being evaluated. If the argument had drawn upon examples and evidence as suggested and thereby plugged in the holes in its reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared in an article in a college departmental newsletter:
“Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do nine out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation.”
My answer:
The argument claims that the model of foreign language instruction at Jones University is superior to that of other universities. Stated in this way, it fails to consider several key factors that could call the conclusion into question, and it relies on questionable evidence. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and has significant flaws.
First, we do not know anything about the students from the 25 other colleges whose speaking skills were tested at the time of their graduation. It’s possible that these students started from a different baseline than the Jones University students. For example, if the non-Jones students did not have any experience or instruction in a particular language prior to college and the Jones students did, then the non-Jones students would be starting at a lower level. This information is important to know because it would allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of Jones University’s program. If the argument had provided more context about the students in question, a more accurate and telling comparison could have been made.
Secondly, it is not clear what models of foreign language instruction the other 25 schools were using. If any of these schools also had the same model as Jones - 10 weeks of intensive training followed by a study abroad program - then it could indicate that the differences in performance levels between Jones students and non-Jones students is not due to the instruction model but rather some other factor. Similarly, if there were any other meaningful differences in the characteristics of the schools, such as foreign language class size and quality of faculty, then this may also have affected students’ performance regardless of the instruction model. The argument could have been strengthened if it explained whether the instruction model was the only difference between the schools.
Additionally, the argument is assuming its own definition of the word superiority. They are assuming that higher fluency in students’ speaking equates to a superior instruction model. However, it’s possible a more holistic definition is warranted, such as one that includes levels in reading, writing, and listening. In an extreme case, Jones students could indeed be quite fluent in speaking but are entirely illiterate. This would definitely cast doubt on whether the instruction model is superior. The argument can thus be viewed as biased due to its self-given designation of having the “superior” instruction model.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of its faulty evidence, biased definitions, and lack of necessary information about key characteristics of the schools and students being evaluated. If the argument had drawn upon examples and evidence as suggested and thereby plugged in the holes in its reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
16 Nov 2023, 12:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates strong coherence and connectivity by effectively organizing ideas and arguments in a logical sequence. Each paragraph builds upon the previous one, and there is a clear flow of ideas throughout the response. Transitions between sentences and paragraphs are well-executed, contributing to the overall coherence of the essay.
Word structure: 6/6
The essay employs a varied and precise word structure. There is a proficient use of vocabulary, and the sentences are clear and concise. The author effectively communicates complex ideas with clarity and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The language is sophisticated but remains accessible, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the essay.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5/6
Paragraphs are well-structured and focused, with each paragraph addressing a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction and conclusion provide a strong framework for the essay. However, some paragraphs could benefit from slightly stronger topic sentences to enhance the overall organization and guide the reader more explicitly.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a high level of language proficiency, with minimal grammatical errors. The sentence structure is varied, and the language is precise. However, there are a few instances where sentence structure could be further refined for greater clarity. Additionally, a couple of sentences are complex and may require closer attention for clarity.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6/6
The vocabulary is rich, varied, and used with precision. The author effectively conveys nuanced meanings and employs vocabulary suitable for an analytical essay. There is a strong command of language, and the choice of words enhances the overall quality of the essay.
Overall, the essay is well-written, exhibiting a strong command of language and effective organization of ideas. The minor areas for improvement are outweighed by the essay's overall strengths in coherence, word structure, paragraph formation, language, and vocabulary use.
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates strong coherence and connectivity by effectively organizing ideas and arguments in a logical sequence. Each paragraph builds upon the previous one, and there is a clear flow of ideas throughout the response. Transitions between sentences and paragraphs are well-executed, contributing to the overall coherence of the essay.
Word structure: 6/6
The essay employs a varied and precise word structure. There is a proficient use of vocabulary, and the sentences are clear and concise. The author effectively communicates complex ideas with clarity and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The language is sophisticated but remains accessible, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the essay.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5/6
Paragraphs are well-structured and focused, with each paragraph addressing a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction and conclusion provide a strong framework for the essay. However, some paragraphs could benefit from slightly stronger topic sentences to enhance the overall organization and guide the reader more explicitly.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a high level of language proficiency, with minimal grammatical errors. The sentence structure is varied, and the language is precise. However, there are a few instances where sentence structure could be further refined for greater clarity. Additionally, a couple of sentences are complex and may require closer attention for clarity.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6/6
The vocabulary is rich, varied, and used with precision. The author effectively conveys nuanced meanings and employs vocabulary suitable for an analytical essay. There is a strong command of language, and the choice of words enhances the overall quality of the essay.
Overall, the essay is well-written, exhibiting a strong command of language and effective organization of ideas. The minor areas for improvement are outweighed by the essay's overall strengths in coherence, word structure, paragraph formation, language, and vocabulary use.
ｃｈｌｏｅｅｓｔｒａｄａ
Moderator:
