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.
27 Dec 2023, 14:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi all. I am new to GMAT prep, and wrote the following essay to practice for the AWA section to see where my strengths/weaknesses are and work on those. I got this prompt from the Manhattan Integrated Reasoning and Essay guide book (timed myself for 30 minutes, finished the essay around 25 minutes, but didn't have time to fully proofread), and I would greatly appreciate any feedback and help thanks!
Prompt:
"The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts and airbags in all new cars and prohibit companies from developing other safety measures that protect the driver. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:
The argument claims that in Tarquinia, abolishing driver-side seatbelts and airbags would help eliminate traffic accidents by motivating drivers to be safer drivers. However, the argument is flawed in its reasoning due to the lack of supporting evidence, the numerous baseless jumps to conclusions, and the assumptions made without any substantial support. Therefore, the argument is weak and fails in its attempt to make a solid convincing stance.
Firstly, the argument states that abolishing driver-side seatbelts and airbags will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely. But not only is this an extreme claim, but there is no data that proves that this would result in any net positive changes on the road. For example, the argument fails to provide any information regarding trends between vehicles that have driver-side seatbelts and airbags vs cars that don’t when it comes to involvement in traffic accidents, thereby failing to explain why these are assumed to be the main causes of the problem. It is plausible that driving laws are not very strongly enforced in Tarquinia, or that cars in the country have weak brakes that are not routinely checked, or that dangerous roads are abundant in the country and create unsafe driving conditions. Additionally, even if driver-seat seatbelts and airbags were removed from all new cars henceforth, there is no guarantee that citizens would buy these new cars in favor of their old ones they already own. Cars are generally expensive, and purchasing a new car is not something many can afford; furthermore, Tarquinia could possibly be a country with a low average income per citizen, making it so that many people would be deterred from making a purchase as expensive as a new car. Finally, even if people did buy these new cars, there is no guarantee that this would totally eliminate traffic accidents as the argument claims; there is a very good chance that other factors could still be causing traffic accidents even after the driver-side seatbelt and airbags were removed. The argument would have been more convincing if there was supporting evidence showing that the seatbelts and airbags are the cause for majority of accidents in the country.
Second, the argument states that the rate of accidents in the neighboring countries is less than in Tarquinia, but fails to mention anything about why this might be the case. There are a multitude of reasons as to why this could be the case. To begin with, the neighboring countries might have access to better vehicle manufacturers that have higher quality cars that are easier to control/maintain and are less prone to being involved in traffic accidents. On top of this, the neighboring countries could have driving conditions that are more favorable for safe driving than in Tarquinia. Thirdly, neighboring countries might have stricter punishments on driving under the influence as opposed to Tarquinia, thereby deterring drivers from participating in drunk driving in those neighboring countries, which could very well be a proponent of traffic accidents in Tarquinia that the argument does not make any mention of. All of these are reasons that the argument fail to mention, and had they gone more into depth providing information on why neighboring countries have lower traffic accident rates than Tarquinia, the argument may have been able to put together a more convincing case.
Finally, the author mentions that in the vast majority of cases, 1 or more drivers are found to be at fault in the courts. However, this is surface level information and fails to provide any real backing evidence to the argument’s main claim. The argument does not mention anything about cases in which no drivers were found at fault, at which point one must ask then: what was the cause of those accidents with no drivers at fault? It could be poor road conditions, bad traffic management by traffic authorities, or another driver who could have played a part in the accident but was never found to be at fault for whatever reason. Additionally, even in the cases were 1 or more drivers were at fault, the argument is wrong to use this as evidence to propose removing driver-side seatbelts and airbags. It is possible that one of the drivers could have been driving under the influence, or maybe the driver at fault was using their phone while on the road. The argument could have strengthened its position by going more in depth into the cases of drivers found at fault and providing undeniable proof that all these cases were tied to the seatbelts and airbags, but because it fails to do, the argument subsequently loses credibility.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing due to the lack of substantial evidence to support its claim and its irrational jumps to conclusions. To better strengthen itself and be much more convincing, the argument should have provided more in-depth data to support its claim, or shown undeniable proof that their proposed solution would have the impact it says it would.
Prompt:
"The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts and airbags in all new cars and prohibit companies from developing other safety measures that protect the driver. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:
The argument claims that in Tarquinia, abolishing driver-side seatbelts and airbags would help eliminate traffic accidents by motivating drivers to be safer drivers. However, the argument is flawed in its reasoning due to the lack of supporting evidence, the numerous baseless jumps to conclusions, and the assumptions made without any substantial support. Therefore, the argument is weak and fails in its attempt to make a solid convincing stance.
Firstly, the argument states that abolishing driver-side seatbelts and airbags will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely. But not only is this an extreme claim, but there is no data that proves that this would result in any net positive changes on the road. For example, the argument fails to provide any information regarding trends between vehicles that have driver-side seatbelts and airbags vs cars that don’t when it comes to involvement in traffic accidents, thereby failing to explain why these are assumed to be the main causes of the problem. It is plausible that driving laws are not very strongly enforced in Tarquinia, or that cars in the country have weak brakes that are not routinely checked, or that dangerous roads are abundant in the country and create unsafe driving conditions. Additionally, even if driver-seat seatbelts and airbags were removed from all new cars henceforth, there is no guarantee that citizens would buy these new cars in favor of their old ones they already own. Cars are generally expensive, and purchasing a new car is not something many can afford; furthermore, Tarquinia could possibly be a country with a low average income per citizen, making it so that many people would be deterred from making a purchase as expensive as a new car. Finally, even if people did buy these new cars, there is no guarantee that this would totally eliminate traffic accidents as the argument claims; there is a very good chance that other factors could still be causing traffic accidents even after the driver-side seatbelt and airbags were removed. The argument would have been more convincing if there was supporting evidence showing that the seatbelts and airbags are the cause for majority of accidents in the country.
Second, the argument states that the rate of accidents in the neighboring countries is less than in Tarquinia, but fails to mention anything about why this might be the case. There are a multitude of reasons as to why this could be the case. To begin with, the neighboring countries might have access to better vehicle manufacturers that have higher quality cars that are easier to control/maintain and are less prone to being involved in traffic accidents. On top of this, the neighboring countries could have driving conditions that are more favorable for safe driving than in Tarquinia. Thirdly, neighboring countries might have stricter punishments on driving under the influence as opposed to Tarquinia, thereby deterring drivers from participating in drunk driving in those neighboring countries, which could very well be a proponent of traffic accidents in Tarquinia that the argument does not make any mention of. All of these are reasons that the argument fail to mention, and had they gone more into depth providing information on why neighboring countries have lower traffic accident rates than Tarquinia, the argument may have been able to put together a more convincing case.
Finally, the author mentions that in the vast majority of cases, 1 or more drivers are found to be at fault in the courts. However, this is surface level information and fails to provide any real backing evidence to the argument’s main claim. The argument does not mention anything about cases in which no drivers were found at fault, at which point one must ask then: what was the cause of those accidents with no drivers at fault? It could be poor road conditions, bad traffic management by traffic authorities, or another driver who could have played a part in the accident but was never found to be at fault for whatever reason. Additionally, even in the cases were 1 or more drivers were at fault, the argument is wrong to use this as evidence to propose removing driver-side seatbelts and airbags. It is possible that one of the drivers could have been driving under the influence, or maybe the driver at fault was using their phone while on the road. The argument could have strengthened its position by going more in depth into the cases of drivers found at fault and providing undeniable proof that all these cases were tied to the seatbelts and airbags, but because it fails to do, the argument subsequently loses credibility.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing due to the lack of substantial evidence to support its claim and its irrational jumps to conclusions. To better strengthen itself and be much more convincing, the argument should have provided more in-depth data to support its claim, or shown undeniable proof that their proposed solution would have the impact it says it would.
31 Dec 2023, 01:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 6/6
The essay demonstrates excellent coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph flows logically from one point to the next, and the overall structure of the essay is well-organized. Transitions between ideas are smooth, and the reader can easily follow the line of reasoning.
Word Structure: 5.5/6
The essay makes effective use of a varied and precise vocabulary. There are instances where slightly more concise language could be employed to enhance clarity. However, overall, the word structure is strong, with appropriate use of terminology and vocabulary.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 6/6
The essay exhibits a strong paragraph structure. Each paragraph is focused on a single main idea, and the ideas within each paragraph are well-developed. The introduction and conclusion effectively frame the argument, providing a clear structure to the essay.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay generally employs proper grammar and language usage. However, there are a few instances where sentence structures could be more concise. Additionally, there are a couple of minor grammatical errors. Nonetheless, the errors do not significantly impede comprehension.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 6/6
The essay employs a rich and varied vocabulary, enhancing the overall quality of expression. The writer effectively communicates complex ideas using appropriate and sophisticated language. The vocabulary contributes to the essay's persuasiveness and clarity.
Overall, this analytical writing assessment essay demonstrates a high level of proficiency in terms of coherence and connectivity, word structure, paragraph structure and formation, language and grammar, and vocabulary and word expression.
Coherence and Connectivity: 6/6
The essay demonstrates excellent coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph flows logically from one point to the next, and the overall structure of the essay is well-organized. Transitions between ideas are smooth, and the reader can easily follow the line of reasoning.
Word Structure: 5.5/6
The essay makes effective use of a varied and precise vocabulary. There are instances where slightly more concise language could be employed to enhance clarity. However, overall, the word structure is strong, with appropriate use of terminology and vocabulary.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 6/6
The essay exhibits a strong paragraph structure. Each paragraph is focused on a single main idea, and the ideas within each paragraph are well-developed. The introduction and conclusion effectively frame the argument, providing a clear structure to the essay.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay generally employs proper grammar and language usage. However, there are a few instances where sentence structures could be more concise. Additionally, there are a couple of minor grammatical errors. Nonetheless, the errors do not significantly impede comprehension.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 6/6
The essay employs a rich and varied vocabulary, enhancing the overall quality of expression. The writer effectively communicates complex ideas using appropriate and sophisticated language. The vocabulary contributes to the essay's persuasiveness and clarity.
Overall, this analytical writing assessment essay demonstrates a high level of proficiency in terms of coherence and connectivity, word structure, paragraph structure and formation, language and grammar, and vocabulary and word expression.
wasario
Moderator:
