Hi,
I've had 2 Argument essays graded by MGMAT instructors and both times I seemed to have missed the boat on the assignment. Apparently I was not addressing the argument's structure enough, and now I'm somewhat confused and dreading this section of the GMAT (which I take in 1 week). It's a real thorn in my side as I want to fully focus on the more important parts of the test.
I just took another MGMAT CAT practive exam and wanted to post my composition to see if an instructor could simply let me know if I'm back in the right ballpark. I'm not so much concerned with the minutia or writing part, but rather I just need to ensure that I'm following instructions sufficiently. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate a basic "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to address my concerns.
As a more general question, I was wondering if you had any suggestions on the best ways to refer to the author? As you can see below (para 2, 3), I ended up using the words "he or she" several times when I didn't want to say "the argument" or "the author" repeatedly, but he/she feels cumbersome. Is it better to just say "he" to be more concise, or use some other descriptive terms?
Please see my essay below, and thanks in advance for any feedback:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a science magazine:
"The "Space Race" of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The aforementioned article in a science magazine argues that the "Space Race" between the USA and Russia in the 1960's yielded great benefits. The author goes on to state that these benefits were both economic and humanitarian in nature and outweighed the costs associated with the Space Race. Finally, the article advocates for current government to make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. While the Space Race may in fact have produced some practical benefits, the argument contains several flaws in its justification of those benefits and the assumptions it makes regarding their current ramifications.
In rationalizing the resource consumption brought about by the Space Race, the author vaguely asserts that the Race yielded "tremendous" technological advances. However, the article fails to explicitly point out any of these such benefits, leaving the argument vulnerable to subjective analysis. Moreover, the author claims that many economic and humanitarian benefits were also derived from the Space Race. Again, the author fails to elaborate on his or her point, which results in the reader wondering which, if any, of these benefits were actually realized. Without specific evidence to support his or her claims, the argument is not convincing.
Additionally, the article states that the benefits of the Space Race have more than outweighed their costs. Yet the author does not provide hard figures regarding either the benefits or costs that he or she is comparing. Without empirical proof to support this ambiguous cost-benefit analysis, the argument fails to make a compelling case for the worthiness of the Space Race.
Because the author asserts that the benefits of the Space Race have more than paid for the efforts and money it exhausted, he or she concludes that government should allocate funds within the budget to finance a manned Mars landing by 2020. This dubious conclusion is based on very hollow reasoning. One, it is simply unclear. Although the author previously referred to the U.S. and Russian governments, he or she fails to explain which government or combination of governments should be responsible for the mission to Mars. Two, it is unclear how the relationship between the costs and benefits of the Space Race in the 1960's and its present day ramifications affect each other. Three, the delineation of a 2020 target date for a Mars landing is arbitrary and unjustified.
The article fails to make a compelling case for the tangible benefits produced by the Space Race. By lacking concrete examples and evidence to support its argument, it is logically weak. If the author had described in detail how the Space Race directly caused identifiable benefits -- technological, humanitarian, and economic -- the article may have been more convincing. By concluding that the Space Race of the 1960's should impact the priorities of modern government in explicit ways, the article also makes unjustified assumptions that once again are not supported by sound reasoning.
GMAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
- StaceyKoprince
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 9349
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Montreal
Very solid essay. Definitely thumbs up and you have definitely beat the goal (which is to score a 4.0 or above). I would guess you are in the 4.5 / 5.0 range. (Closer to a 5.0, IMO.)
The only drawback I really see is that you did not spend as much time attacking the assumption that something that may have been true in one instance in the past (the Space Race) will hold in the future. This, to me, seems to be the biggest assumption made by the author but you don't introduce the concept until your second to last paragraph - and I would have liked to see a much more explicit statement along the lines of "The author presents no evidence that we can expect similar benefits from a Mars landing project, particularly as it is reasonable to assume that a significant part of the success of the Space Race resulted from the competition between two rivals; such circumstances do not appear to apply to this latest plan."
Very nice job. :)
The only drawback I really see is that you did not spend as much time attacking the assumption that something that may have been true in one instance in the past (the Space Race) will hold in the future. This, to me, seems to be the biggest assumption made by the author but you don't introduce the concept until your second to last paragraph - and I would have liked to see a much more explicit statement along the lines of "The author presents no evidence that we can expect similar benefits from a Mars landing project, particularly as it is reasonable to assume that a significant part of the success of the Space Race resulted from the competition between two rivals; such circumstances do not appear to apply to this latest plan."
Very nice job. :)
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
Instructor
Director, Content & Curriculum
ManhattanPrep
- StaceyKoprince
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 9349
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Montreal
5 posts Page 1 of 1