I have roughly six months to prepare for the GRE which contains an analytical writing section.
The Analytical Writing measure consists of two separately timed analytical writing tasks:
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Issue" task
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Argument" task
Every day, I am going to do one practice writing task in 30 minutes. Please rate each essay on a scale of 1 to 6 and criticize it as harshly as possible. Consider the time constraints and the fact that I have never seen the prompt before.
Here is today's:
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
With the advent of the computer, the issue of what is the role of technology in human society comes into the forefront of discussion. In many ways technology solves a lot of problems for us without any effort on our part. However, it is up to humans to interpret the results of machine computations with the use of something machines could never have - creativity. Using human ingenuity, technology allows us to think about problems in new ways that we never could have before.
In mathematics, technology solves tedius problems and calculations that could take hours, days, or even years to solve by hand, allowing mathematicians to focus on researching new theorems, something a computer cannot. For instance, the Four Color Map Theorem, which states that the minimum number of colors needed to color a map such that no two ajacent countries share the same color is four. The proof of this statement relies on hundreds of thousands of calculations performed by a computer, which could not ever feasibly be completed by even the most dedicated team of mathematicians. Mathematicians then interpreted the results of the machine calculations in order to draw the conclusion of the theorem.
One of the most infamous unsolved math problem is the deceptively simple Collatz Conjecture. The problems states that if one takes any counting number, multiplies it by 4, adds 1, then repeats the process if the new number is odd, or divides by two if the number is even, then eventually the algorithm returns the number 1. Currently machines have tested this statement for every counting number up into the trillions and so far the statement holds for every such number. However, a machine could never test every number; there are infinitely many. It is a human that must prove the statement is true for every counting number using creativity, innovation, and ingenuity.
The role of the machine is to provide humans with insight into a problem. Humans must think for themselves to draw the logical conclusion from the data presented to them by technology.
I have roughly six months to prepare for the GRE which contains an analytical writing section.
The Analytical Writing measure consists of two separately timed analytical writing tasks:
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Issue" task
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Argument" task
Every day, I am going to do one practice writing task in 30 minutes. Please rate each essay on a scale of 1 to 6 and criticize it as harshly as possible. Consider the time constraints and the fact that I have never seen the prompt before.
Here is today's:
other than some grammatical errors and sentence structure (spelling i'm not so good at picking out but like the statement says, i no longer need to think for myself in the spelling department thanks to technology lol) the piece as a whole is a decent view on the "disagree" side of the table... i however would have chosen to agree with it :). It's not so much a lack of creativity, as it is an acceptional advancement for procrastination and also increases a lack of human contact which in turn leads to less people actually brainstorming with one another... but that is my opinion.
other than some grammatical errors and sentence structure (spelling i'm not so good at picking out but like the statement says, i no longer need to think for myself in the spelling department thanks to technology lol) the piece as a whole is a decent view on the "disagree" side of the table... i however would have chosen to agree with it :). It's not so much a lack of creativity, as it is an acceptional advancement for procrastination and also increases a lack of human contact which in turn leads to less people actually brainstorming with one another... but that is my opinion.
Well, the point of the thread is not whether or not you agree with the prompt, but rather if my argument is well written and logically sound.
Here is todays:
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In human history, profoundly complex discoveries have been found by two groups independently of one another. However, if the discovery is complex enough, we can conclude that the discovery was uniquely made by one particular group. We need to know if the particular distinctive pattern was so intricate that we could know without any reasonable doubt that it could not have been possible for any other society to have duplicated it by pure chance. In mathematics, many discoveries are made more than once by different mathematicians who did not know that the result was already known. Sometimes these results are simple enough where it is feasible that two independent mathematicians discovered them on their own. However, in some circumstances a discovery is so complicated that it simply could only be discovered once.
One example of an highly unique innovation made by two groups independently is that up until the 1800's it was not known whether or not polynomials of degree 5 or higher could be solved using radials. The proof either supporting or disproving this was so ostensibly complex that it seemingly could only have been discovered once. However, while in prison 20-year old Evariste Galois proved that the quintic equation cannot be solved by radicals using what is now known as Galois groups. Remarkably, this exact same result was proven by the mathematician Abel just a few years earlier using the exact same method! In this case, the proof that the quintic equation is unsolveable by radicals was not so intricate and complex that it could not have been discovered by two separate individuals.
This is in stark contrast to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. In the 1700's, mathematician Fermat stated that the equation x^n + y^n = z^n has no integral solutions for n greater than or equal to n. In a journal of his discovered after his death, he wrote in the margins that, "I have discovered a proof so incredible that it could not fit in the margins of this page." However, Fermat's proof of his own theorem was never discovered. For many years mathematicians debated whether or not he even could have discovered the solution at that particular time in mathematical history. This problem remained unresolved for nearly 250 years until Princeton's Andrew Wiles proved the theorem in 1994. Wile's proof was 700 pages long and relied on mathematics exclusive to the 20th century. Experts in the field have since concluded that Fermat simply could not have proved his theorem back in the 1700's. In this case, something unique could only have been discovered one time and one time only.
Historians need to examine the issue of the Palean basket with the utmost scrutiny for uniqueness. Does the basket have twines, colors, textures, or patterns so distinquishable that they could not have been found anywhere else on the planet? Perhaps some of these traits are found in other human civilizations such that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the baskets were not unique to the particular village. With a keen eye and strong resolve, a coalition of historians, acheologists, anthropologists, and art historians should be able to resolve this issue decisively.
Really only your last paragraph in your most recent piece even remotely correlates to the prompt. You do not focus nearly enough on the actual argument about the basket.
Your first passage seems fine. Maybe could have used another example that is more concerned with the general populace instead of specific mathematicians, as I could bring up the counter-argument that perhaps people who are already creative and capable of thinking for themselves will utilize technology to aid them, etc; whereas people who are not quite as capable will rely on technology and lose their critical thinking skills as a result.
Your second passage doesn't seem to do anything that the prompt asks you to do.
The prompt states-
"Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument."
As such, one would expect that you need to remain focused on the given passage and the argument presented by it, not go talk about math and how the same things may rise independently from one another.
And the passage has a fair bit of flaws or random assumptions that need to be filled.
Edit-
To help you think on these lines, here are a couple of things that may weaken the argument.
1) Assumes that just because they never found any evidence of boats, there must have been no boats.
2) Assumes that the river always remained that wide and deep.
3) Assumes that the Paleans never traded their goods to other communities that in turn traded it to Lithos.
Here are a couple that may strengthen the argument.
1) Evidence has been found suggesting that the basket design originated from Lithos or some other site.
2) The two towns had once been linked to numerous other towns that traded broadly and extensively with one another.
3) It would have been impossible for anyone to have crossed the river.
Stuff like that. They vary in strength, but they serve their purpose of either strengthening or weakening the argument at hand.
Really only your last paragraph in your most recent piece even remotely correlates to the prompt. You do not focus nearly enough on the actual argument about the basket.
I realize that I really missed the boat on that prompt. I didn't realize what I was suppose to do and did something completely different. See, this is why I am practicing now so that I don't score a 1/6 come test day.
Your first passage seems fine. Maybe could have used another example that is more concerned with the general populace instead of specific mathematicians, as I could bring up the counter-argument that perhaps people who are already creative and capable of thinking for themselves will utilize technology to aid them, etc; whereas people who are not quite as capable will rely on technology and lose their critical thinking skills as a result.
Your second passage doesn't seem to do anything that the prompt asks you to do.
The prompt states-
"Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument."
As such, one would expect that you need to remain focused on the given passage and the argument presented by it, not go talk about math and how the same things may rise independently from one another.
And the passage has a fair bit of flaws or random assumptions that need to be filled.
Edit-
To help you think on these lines, here are a couple of things that may weaken the argument.
1) Assumes that just because they never found any evidence of boats, there must have been no boats.
2) Assumes that the river always remained that wide and deep.
3) Assumes that the Paleans never traded their goods to other communities that in turn traded it to Lithos.
Here are a couple that may strengthen the argument.
1) Evidence has been found suggesting that the basket design originated from Lithos or some other site.
2) The two towns had once been linked to numerous other towns that traded broadly and extensively with one another.
3) It would have been impossible for anyone to have crossed the river.
Stuff like that. They vary in strength, but they serve their purpose of either strengthening or weakening the argument at hand.
Yeah I really goofed up on yesterday's. I didn't realize I was suppose to criticize that argument and not give an argument of my own. Good thing I have 6 months to master this stuff!
Today's was really, really hard for me to write on. I hope I don't get a topic like this on the real thing, but I need to be prepared in case I do.
To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Major cities of a society are a central hub for the arts, entertainment, government, and scholastics. By studying these cities, we learn of a societies ethics, values, and historical developments. However, studying the major cities of a society is just one of many ways to learn the most important characteristics of that society. There is much value in also studying small cities, or perhaps no cities at all, to learn the most important characteristics of a given society.
Feodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment takes place in St. Petersburg, Russia. Through Dostoevsky's description of St. Petersburg, we learn several facts about Russian society. The central female in the novel, Sonja, is a prostitute, and, as such, must carry with her a government mandated prostitution card. We thus see that in 19th century Russian society, prostitution was viewed as acceptable as long as it was government regulated. The protagonist Raskanikov attempts to smoke a cigarette in the city streets but a police officer reprimands him. Even in the 19th century, smoking was seen to have a detrimental effect on citizens.
As much value as studying major cities provides, it is essential to study smaller towns to learn more about the society's rural life. By studying rural areas of a society, we learn what the farmers, artisans, and those of lower socio-economic status value. In these less densely populated cities, perhaps certain religious views are more prominent and uniquitous than in the large cities. The idea of what is fun may center around the family and church in the countryside, but around music, plays, and movies in the city.
It is also important to note that even without studying a society's cities, major or minor, we can still learn the most important characters of that society. In Cormac McCarthy's The Road, an unnamed global apocalypse occurs, leaving the majority of earth scorched and uninhabitable. As a result, anarchy replaces an established government in the United States. Without any food, humans resort to canabalism and they go to any length to survive, including murdering those who do manage to scavange food. When civilizations break down completely, we find that societies value survival and self-preservation over all else.
By studying all forms of cities, large and small, as well as a lack of cities all together, we can form a complete profile of a societies characteristics. A society may have characteristics unique to dense urban areas and it may also have characteristics found only in lowly populated rural areas. Furthermore, we do not even have to study cities at all to discover even the most important of characteristics that a society possesses.
Today's topic was hard as hell! I bombed it. I know nothing about biochemistry and so for the first 10 minutes I stared at the screen.
The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.
"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
This study involves eighteen rhesus monkeys, which is a relatively low sample size. This may not be large enough to draw the conclusion that being a first born monkey implies that it will produce up to twice as much cortisol in stimulating situations as do its younger siblings. To make a claim about an entire specieis of monkeys based on eighteen particular monkeys is not satisfying. A sample size of say one hundred or more rhesus monkeys may produce contradictory results. The conclusion of this study may just be a coincidence specific to this particular sample of rhesus monkeys. This experiment simply needs to be performed on more rhesus monkeys in order to make a definitive conclusion.
There may be value in performing the same study on a different species of monkeys and seeing if it yields results that supports the claims made about rhesus monkeys. If several other species of monkeys undergo the same experiment and it is found that there is no correlation between birth order and cortisol levels, then this could indicate that the initial study was flawed and that it should be reexamined.
Despite sharing a large percentage of their genetic code, as well as sharing a common ancestor, firstborn humans producing relatviely high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations may have no connection to firstborn rhesus monkeys producing relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations.
The study mentions the impact of stimulating situations on cortisol levels. This begs the question of what happens to cortisol levels under less stimulating conditions? The study does not mention this at all. Perhaps first born rhesus monkeys produce more cortisol under any given setting. The rhesus monkeys' cortisol levels should be monitored 24-hours per day and their cortisol levels under every circumstance should be evaluated.
There is not enough data to draw the conclusion that first born monkeys produce higher relative levels of cortisol under stimulating conditions due to a low sample size and not examining cortisol levels under every possible situation, not just the stimulating ones.
Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
At its core, an education is an investment and, like any good investment, it should yield returns in the future. This is not possible if a student pursues fields that he is not capable of succeeding in. Academic advisors are not doing their job as academic advisors if they do not suggest degree options and career paths that are suitable for the student's intellectual capabilities, work ethic, and interests. Educational institutitions do a disservice to the student if they do not dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
An education is subsidized by taxpayers' dollars through various means. For examples, a student can take out a federal loan to pay for his education. If the student pursues studies in a field that he simply is not capable of succeeding in, then he is unlikely find a job in that field, and therefore will probably not be able to repay his student loans, hence squandering taxpayers' dollars. Educational institutions also receive federal grants. If the grand money is spent facillitating the needs of students treading water in their academic pursuits, then those funds are not being utilized for students who are in fact capable of succeeding in their chosen field.
However, it is important that educational institution do not so strongly dissuade an at risk student from pursuing his desired field that the student feels his dream career is now beyond his grasp. Sometimes dedicated and strong willed people can defy the odds and succeed despite being told that they will likely fail. Basketball legend Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team and went on to become arguably the greatest player of all time.
But even if educational institutions do in fact have this responsibility of dissuading at risk students, students must ultimately have self-responsibility for choosing a field that they have potential for success in. A student who cannot pass remedial algebra after three tries should know that it probably is not a good idea to pursue engineering.
Schools ultimately have the burden of guiding a student towards academic goals suitable for that student's personal strengths and weaknesses. If the school does not do this, then it can potentially waste taxpayers' money and government funds. Educational institutions need not to completely crush a student's dreams but still should present the student with viable options for the future.
Starts off strong, ends off wishy-washy. "Schools have a responsibility to dissuade students, but students have a responsibility to not pursue, except for the one in a million chance that student is Michael Jordan, in which case schools shouldn't dreamcrush." What was the point of all that? I can't even figure out if you're advancing an argument or addressing a counterargument.
What I believe the call of the assignment was: first, make your point that schools should dissuade. Then, advance the strongest argument you can think of why, as a pedagogical principle, schools should encourage students to pursue fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed (well-rounded education instead of overspecializing, diverse perspectives, not interfering with the student's own motivation). Then, rebut that argument. "Because there's a one in a million chance the student in question is Michael Jordan" is not a particularly compelling argument.
Minor point, but the masculine default irks me. Is it that difficult to use alternating he and she?
Starts off strong, ends off wishy-washy. "Schools have a responsibility to dissuade students, but students have a responsibility to not pursue, except for the one in a million chance that student is Michael Jordan, in which case schools shouldn't dreamcrush." What was the point of all that? I can't even figure out if you're advancing an argument or addressing a counterargument.
What I believe the call of the assignment was: first, make your point that schools should dissuade. Then, advance the strongest argument you can think of why, as a pedagogical principle, schools should encourage students to pursue fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed (well-rounded education instead of overspecializing, diverse perspectives, not interfering with the student's own motivation). Then, rebut that argument. "Because there's a one in a million chance the student in question is Michael Jordan" is not a particularly compelling argument.
Minor point, but the masculine default irks me. Is it that difficult to use alternating he and she?
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, today's essay was pretty crappy I think. I stared at the screen and just could not come up with examples.
I've been taught that it's bad form to say "he or she" or to alternate between "he" and "she," and that you should just pick one and stick to it. I chose "he" but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a preference.
I think this one was halfway decent. Maybe a 3-4 out of 6.
The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increase in skateboard users in the plaza and a decline in sales and property damage but it is fallacious to assume that the cause is the increase in skateboard users. It may merely be a coincidence and questions about the state of the economy, local gang activity, and competing plazas need to be raised before reaching a conclusion.
Before the Central Plaza store owner concludes that prohibiting skateboarding will return business in Central Plaza to its previously high levels, he should consider how other plazas in the area deal with skateboarders. If other plazas allow skateboarding, and the number of shoppers at those plazas have remained at a consistently high level, then that is an indicator that skateboarding may not be the culprit for a decline in business at Central Plaza.
The store owner stated that there has been an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism. But has he actually witnessed first hand skateboarders littering and vandalizing or is it his assumption that the skateboarders are the perpetrators? Perhaps they aren't. Perhaps gang activity has increased in that particular part of town and gang members are the ones defacing the property. The only sure way to know for sure that it is the skateboarders who are doing the vandalism and littering would be to install security cameras. Also, perhaps there is a lack of trash cans in this plaza which discourages customers from properly disposing of their waste in the correct facilities.
The store owner should also study the health of the economy in his city as well as for the nation as a whole. Has the economy recently entered into a recession? That could explain the decline in sales which has nothing to do with skateboarders. Perhaps all of the plazas in that city are experiencing a low volume of sales and that it is not exclusive to Central Plaza.
The store owner is clearly conflating correlation with causation. While it is definitely possible that the skateboarders are the source of vandalism, littering, and a decline in sales, that is not the only possibility. There may be a nation-wide recession and every plaza in that particular city is experiencing the same decline in sales. Or perhaps this particular plaza is experiencing a temporary setback in sales independant of skateboarding in the area. Other plazas may allow skateboarding and still flourish in sales. Gang activity may also be on the rise, which could explain vandalism and littering. The store owner needs proof that it is the skateboarders who are doing the littering and vandalism and he can achieve this by asking witnesses or installing security cameras. This may be a case of a store owner looking for a scapegoat for poor sales and property damage and more evidence needs to be presented before any conclusion should be drawn.
I wrote a post a while back, then accidentally killed it. Got annoyed and didn't post.
But here's my serious advice - Take the time to read the question and just write down your thought process concerning what the blurb means.
You have a long time for this- there's no reason to continue just writing essays. Rather, you should aim to try to get what the blurb and the question is asking you to do. Take the time to study the process before you go into the actual thing.
Your last one is rather all over the place. The question specifically asks you to "discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result", but you don't really do this. Rather, you go straight to making a conclusion (that he is not correct in his belief), and then you explain why. You don't actually take the time to analyze his reasoning. When you do, it's rather superficial. One notable example is how you somehow put the skateboarders and the vandalism together when the blurb gives absolutely no mention of this, or the thought that the owners think that the skateboarders are also the vandals.
The last paragraph is sound, but it functionally rewrites the entire essay concisely and neatly into one paragraph. Thus, everything else seems superfluous.
Is there a way you can read other GRE essay writings? I honestly don't know what kind of expectations are there for them. Are they on par with the SAT writing samples? Or do they actually require you to put some thought into what you're writing?
I wrote a post a while back, then accidentally killed it. Got annoyed and didn't post.
But here's my serious advice - Take the time to read the question and just write down your thought process concerning what the blurb means.
You have a long time for this- there's no reason to continue just writing essays. Rather, you should aim to try to get what the blurb and the question is asking you to do. Take the time to study the process before you go into the actual thing.
Your last one is rather all over the place. The question specifically asks you to "discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result", but you don't really do this. Rather, you go straight to making a conclusion (that he is not correct in his belief), and then you explain why. You don't actually take the time to analyze his reasoning. When you do, it's rather superficial. One notable example is how you somehow put the skateboarders and the vandalism together when the blurb gives absolutely no mention of this, or the thought that the owners think that the skateboarders are also the vandals.
The last paragraph is sound, but it functionally rewrites the entire essay concisely and neatly into one paragraph. Thus, everything else seems superfluous.
Is there a way you can read other GRE essay writings? I honestly don't know what kind of expectations are there for them. Are they on par with the SAT writing samples? Or do they actually require you to put some thought into what you're writing?
Yeah, that last essay was pretty bad, probably a 2/6 based on the grading criteria. But I really think I nailed this next one, I think this one is my best essay yet, and it probably at least a 4-5.
The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The homeowner's argument to his friend contains several logical fallacies and he does not deduce logically the conclusion that homes sell quicker and at a better price with Adams Reality. The homeowner uses the number of employees at each real estate agency as part of his argument when that may have nothing to do with how quickly or at what price a house sells for. He also uses his two personal experiences with each company to make a general conclusion. Finally, the homeowner uses the revenue of the companies to support his argument when revenue is not the same thing as profit and is not indicative of how quickly a home sells.
It may be true that Adams has 40 real estate agents compared to Fitch's 25 but the quantity of workers do not neccessarily determine the quality of their work. Although there are only 25 workers at Fitch, those 25 workers may be much more efficient than 40 of Adams' workers, allowing Fitch to higher less workers to perform the same tasks as at Adams. Furthermore, the fact that some of the workers at Fitch only work part time is not indicative of how successful they are as real estate agents. The workers may be able to complete all of their functions and duties are real estate agents in part-time hours and not need to work a full 40-hours per week.
The homeowner uses two specific examples to make a general claim about Fitch Reality and Adams Reality. It is true that it took the homeowner four months to sell a home with Fitch Reality and only one month to sell another home with Adams Reality but that is not enough evidence to conclude that Adams Reality sells homes faster than Fitch Reality. Perhaps those are just outliers in the set of all home sales data for the two real estate companies. We need to know how quickly homes sell on average for the two companies using a large sample size of say one hundred or more homes.
The homeowner claims that revenue the revenue at Adams was twice as high as that of Fitch. However, this does not imply that homes sell at a better price with Adams than they do with Fitch. Perhaps Adams sells more high end, upscale homes than does Fitch. Fitch may specialize in selling smaller homes, which could mean less revenue per home. However, revenue is not the same as profit. Fitch may in fact make more profit per home than does Adams if Fitch has less overhead than Adams. For instance, given the average home sells for $168,000 at Adams, the profit margin for each house may be less than that of the average home that sells for $144,000 with Fitch.
The homeowner makes erroneous assumptions to persuade his friend to use Adams Reality over Fitch Reality. He assumes that having a higher quantity of employees at a real estate agency is proportionate to the success of that agency. He also uses specific instances to make general claims about the two real estate agencies. The homeowner conflates revenue and profit leading to the false conclusion that homes with Adams sell for a better price than with Fitch. A more compelling argument could be made to use Adams over Fitch had the home owner used statistical data from a large sample size of home sales from both real estate agencies.
The Analytical Writing measure consists of two separately timed analytical writing tasks:
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Issue" task
-a 30-minute "Analyze an Argument" task
Every day, I am going to do one practice writing task in 30 minutes. Please rate each essay on a scale of 1 to 6 and criticize it as harshly as possible. Consider the time constraints and the fact that I have never seen the prompt before.
Here is today's:
other than some grammatical errors and sentence structure (spelling i'm not so good at picking out but like the statement says, i no longer need to think for myself in the spelling department thanks to technology lol) the piece as a whole is a decent view on the "disagree" side of the table... i however would have chosen to agree with it :). It's not so much a lack of creativity, as it is an acceptional advancement for procrastination and also increases a lack of human contact which in turn leads to less people actually brainstorming with one another... but that is my opinion.
http://kersmtgalters.deviantart.com/
To buy some of my alters check out my ebay page and add me to your favorites here:http://myworld.ebay.com/queen_gothica13?_trksid=p2047675.l2559
Well, the point of the thread is not whether or not you agree with the prompt, but rather if my argument is well written and logically sound.
Here is todays:
Your second passage doesn't seem to do anything that the prompt asks you to do.
The prompt states-
"Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument."
As such, one would expect that you need to remain focused on the given passage and the argument presented by it, not go talk about math and how the same things may rise independently from one another.
And the passage has a fair bit of flaws or random assumptions that need to be filled.
Edit-
To help you think on these lines, here are a couple of things that may weaken the argument.
1) Assumes that just because they never found any evidence of boats, there must have been no boats.
2) Assumes that the river always remained that wide and deep.
3) Assumes that the Paleans never traded their goods to other communities that in turn traded it to Lithos.
Here are a couple that may strengthen the argument.
1) Evidence has been found suggesting that the basket design originated from Lithos or some other site.
2) The two towns had once been linked to numerous other towns that traded broadly and extensively with one another.
3) It would have been impossible for anyone to have crossed the river.
Stuff like that. They vary in strength, but they serve their purpose of either strengthening or weakening the argument at hand.
I realize that I really missed the boat on that prompt. I didn't realize what I was suppose to do and did something completely different. See, this is why I am practicing now so that I don't score a 1/6 come test day.
Yeah I really goofed up on yesterday's. I didn't realize I was suppose to criticize that argument and not give an argument of my own. Good thing I have 6 months to master this stuff!
Today's was really, really hard for me to write on. I hope I don't get a topic like this on the real thing, but I need to be prepared in case I do.
--
What I believe the call of the assignment was: first, make your point that schools should dissuade. Then, advance the strongest argument you can think of why, as a pedagogical principle, schools should encourage students to pursue fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed (well-rounded education instead of overspecializing, diverse perspectives, not interfering with the student's own motivation). Then, rebut that argument. "Because there's a one in a million chance the student in question is Michael Jordan" is not a particularly compelling argument.
Minor point, but the masculine default irks me. Is it that difficult to use alternating he and she?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, today's essay was pretty crappy I think. I stared at the screen and just could not come up with examples.
I've been taught that it's bad form to say "he or she" or to alternate between "he" and "she," and that you should just pick one and stick to it. I chose "he" but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a preference.
But here's my serious advice - Take the time to read the question and just write down your thought process concerning what the blurb means.
You have a long time for this- there's no reason to continue just writing essays. Rather, you should aim to try to get what the blurb and the question is asking you to do. Take the time to study the process before you go into the actual thing.
Your last one is rather all over the place. The question specifically asks you to "discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result", but you don't really do this. Rather, you go straight to making a conclusion (that he is not correct in his belief), and then you explain why. You don't actually take the time to analyze his reasoning. When you do, it's rather superficial. One notable example is how you somehow put the skateboarders and the vandalism together when the blurb gives absolutely no mention of this, or the thought that the owners think that the skateboarders are also the vandals.
The last paragraph is sound, but it functionally rewrites the entire essay concisely and neatly into one paragraph. Thus, everything else seems superfluous.
Is there a way you can read other GRE essay writings? I honestly don't know what kind of expectations are there for them. Are they on par with the SAT writing samples? Or do they actually require you to put some thought into what you're writing?
Yeah, that last essay was pretty bad, probably a 2/6 based on the grading criteria. But I really think I nailed this next one, I think this one is my best essay yet, and it probably at least a 4-5.
Thanks for all of the feedback! I am elated! I never guessed I could score that highly!