Hi ,
Can someone please grade my essay , provide feed back and approx score. I am previously having issues with analyzing the logic behind the argument instead of giving actual examples of making the argument mor solid. Please let me know if i'm doing better this time around. Thanks!
FROM MGMAT CAT Exam:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the personal finance section of a popular magazine:
"The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation’s population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security."
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The personal finance section of a popular magazine concludes that investing in real estate is the best way to ensure financial security. The argument is based upon two pieces of evidence: 1) average price of an acre of land has continued to increase steadily and 2) nation's population is projected to keep increase though land amount will stay constant. The conclusion, is however, faulty because it has many jumps in logic and utilizes assumption with no futher evidence to back it up.
Firstly, the conclusion assumes that increases in the average price of land correlates with good investment. The author concludes that because the average price of land has gone up through the past 80 years, and population will continue to increase, this makes investing in real estate profitable. There is no evidence in the argument to prove this point. The better prove his point, the author should include data to justify the connection between increase in price and increase in population. Furthermore, as it currently stands, the author is making one grand statement that all lands will increase in price. Some land may actual decrease in price, while other land may increase in price through the years. The author may better justify his point by providing evidence of areas of the country where price has continuously increase. The argument could be strong should the author limit his statement to only certain parts of the country rather than making an all inclusive statement.
Secondly, the author concludes that investing in real estate for people approaching retirement will ensure fincancial security. There is no evidence to prove should a point. The author needs to provide data that links together his argument. Investing in real estate may be risky and some investor may all loose money. Perhaps the author needs to modify his argument and / or justify why real estate investment provides security. Perhaps, this type of investment could be compared to other types of investment. Without futher evidence , we cannot make the conclusion
In conclusion, the author concludes that because price of land has increase through the years and that population will continue to incrase, investing in real estate is a good way to ensure financial security of someone who is near retirement. Futher evidence is needed to justify the conclusion, otherwise, it cannot stand true.
GMAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
- StaceyKoprince
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 9363
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Montreal
Nope, you didn't forget anything! We're actually only allocated a limited amount of time a day to answer questions and essays take a long time to grade, so we only do one a day. And, unfortunately, a lot of others posted essays right before you did, so we've had a bit of a backlog.
Your argument is solid. You do have a number of typos and spelling mistakes, so you may want to plan your time such that you can spend a few minutes proofreading the essay at the end. A few errors won't matter, especially things that can be construed as mere typos, but you have things like "There is no evidence to prove should a point" instead of "such a point" which is a larger problem than a typo.
It also seemed like you ran out of time at the end - you end the 3rd paragraph a little abruptly and your conclusion is much more basic than the earlier parts of your essay. Ideally, you should only take about 3 minutes to read and analyze the argument before you choose your points and begin writing. If you find it takes you longer to do that, you need to do some additional practice to pick up speed - because if you go over 3 minutes, you're taking time away from writing.
For an argument, you pretty much already know what your introduction paragraph is going to be: an elaboration on the idea that the argument has flaws and unsupported assumptions.
Your second paragraph is fine except for your last sentence - you actually make an assumption that the argument needs to be limited to certain parts of the country. Logically, this sounds good - but you don't technically present any evidence to support this either. :) So do say that it may be the case that only certain parts of the country will provide good real estate investments, and the author either needs to show that the whole country would be good for this or, if only certain areas are applicable, the author then needs to limit himself to those areas. Be really careful about making assumptions yourself based upon what you know in the real world, b/c you're unlikely to be able to justify those assumptions in your essay (you can't go looking up facts and figures to strengthen your case).
Your second point is also excellent, but you ran out of time on that last sentence. If you had limited your argument a little bit in the prior paragraph (as suggested, above) you would have had time for one more solid sentence in this paragraph.
You still need to pick up more time, however, because you need to beef up your conclusion a bit. You need to (1) restate your thesis - that the argument is flawed, and (2) restate how the author could better support / strengthen the argument. If you have the time, you might even add another sentence or two on the latter item, expanding a bit on how to make a better argument - but only if you have the time.
Overall, I'd say a 3.5 or 4.0. You're close (your goal should be to beat the average, which is a 4.0) but need some more work here.
Your argument is solid. You do have a number of typos and spelling mistakes, so you may want to plan your time such that you can spend a few minutes proofreading the essay at the end. A few errors won't matter, especially things that can be construed as mere typos, but you have things like "There is no evidence to prove should a point" instead of "such a point" which is a larger problem than a typo.
It also seemed like you ran out of time at the end - you end the 3rd paragraph a little abruptly and your conclusion is much more basic than the earlier parts of your essay. Ideally, you should only take about 3 minutes to read and analyze the argument before you choose your points and begin writing. If you find it takes you longer to do that, you need to do some additional practice to pick up speed - because if you go over 3 minutes, you're taking time away from writing.
For an argument, you pretty much already know what your introduction paragraph is going to be: an elaboration on the idea that the argument has flaws and unsupported assumptions.
Your second paragraph is fine except for your last sentence - you actually make an assumption that the argument needs to be limited to certain parts of the country. Logically, this sounds good - but you don't technically present any evidence to support this either. :) So do say that it may be the case that only certain parts of the country will provide good real estate investments, and the author either needs to show that the whole country would be good for this or, if only certain areas are applicable, the author then needs to limit himself to those areas. Be really careful about making assumptions yourself based upon what you know in the real world, b/c you're unlikely to be able to justify those assumptions in your essay (you can't go looking up facts and figures to strengthen your case).
Your second point is also excellent, but you ran out of time on that last sentence. If you had limited your argument a little bit in the prior paragraph (as suggested, above) you would have had time for one more solid sentence in this paragraph.
You still need to pick up more time, however, because you need to beef up your conclusion a bit. You need to (1) restate your thesis - that the argument is flawed, and (2) restate how the author could better support / strengthen the argument. If you have the time, you might even add another sentence or two on the latter item, expanding a bit on how to make a better argument - but only if you have the time.
Overall, I'd say a 3.5 or 4.0. You're close (your goal should be to beat the average, which is a 4.0) but need some more work here.
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
- Sefi
Please can someone grade my analysis of an issue
Essay 1: 9-30-958am - 28 mins
In some countries, TV and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive languages and behavior. In others they are not. What’s your stance, should the government be allowed to censor TV and radio programs and why or why not?
The use of verbal or offensive language has always been an issue, as it tends to be against the values of many individuals. The use of offensive language in some countries television and radio are carefully censored by the government, while in others there not. In my view, the government as well as advocates for consumers should be allowed to censor television or radio programs.
Television and radio stations are mode of communication in many countries. Thus, all ages are exposed to the information provided in this form. The most fragile group that needs to be protected from the use of offensive language includes children under the age of 6. At this age, children are still forming their own identity and they are shaped by their environment, such as the media.
Also, many advocates for consumers believe that an increased exposure to offensive language could result in the mimicking of such traits. Especially by children, who are under the age of 6; thus, these advocates fight for the use of such languages to be censored. This will go a long way to improve morality among children, in the long run. For instance, some studies have shown that kids learn by example; therefore, when they are exposed to indecent behavior from what is portrayed on Television, they emulate it.
As government and advocates for consumers ensure that offensive languages are censored, they encourage active participation of all individuals, regardless of their age. For instance, some kids are not allowed to stay up late even if they want to play with their parents. Part of the reason for this is that parents are worried that their kids would be exposed to offensive language they see on television, which they would eventually mimic.
Nevertheless, one can argue that countries where there is little or no censorship still have a high rate of morality, as kids are decent. While this might be the case, it is vital to remember that we have to educate these young kids from their early days by showing them right from wrong, which is best done through examples: seeing and learning.
In conclusion, I believe that is not only necessary, but also it is crucial that the government alongside with advocates for consumers ensure that offensive languages are censored. This will go along way to improve communication between the media and the masses, as well as improve the morality of the youths, who learn by example.
In some countries, TV and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive languages and behavior. In others they are not. What’s your stance, should the government be allowed to censor TV and radio programs and why or why not?
The use of verbal or offensive language has always been an issue, as it tends to be against the values of many individuals. The use of offensive language in some countries television and radio are carefully censored by the government, while in others there not. In my view, the government as well as advocates for consumers should be allowed to censor television or radio programs.
Television and radio stations are mode of communication in many countries. Thus, all ages are exposed to the information provided in this form. The most fragile group that needs to be protected from the use of offensive language includes children under the age of 6. At this age, children are still forming their own identity and they are shaped by their environment, such as the media.
Also, many advocates for consumers believe that an increased exposure to offensive language could result in the mimicking of such traits. Especially by children, who are under the age of 6; thus, these advocates fight for the use of such languages to be censored. This will go a long way to improve morality among children, in the long run. For instance, some studies have shown that kids learn by example; therefore, when they are exposed to indecent behavior from what is portrayed on Television, they emulate it.
As government and advocates for consumers ensure that offensive languages are censored, they encourage active participation of all individuals, regardless of their age. For instance, some kids are not allowed to stay up late even if they want to play with their parents. Part of the reason for this is that parents are worried that their kids would be exposed to offensive language they see on television, which they would eventually mimic.
Nevertheless, one can argue that countries where there is little or no censorship still have a high rate of morality, as kids are decent. While this might be the case, it is vital to remember that we have to educate these young kids from their early days by showing them right from wrong, which is best done through examples: seeing and learning.
In conclusion, I believe that is not only necessary, but also it is crucial that the government alongside with advocates for consumers ensure that offensive languages are censored. This will go along way to improve communication between the media and the masses, as well as improve the morality of the youths, who learn by example.
4 posts Page 1 of 1