The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
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 order to protect Tria's beaches and buildings which are located along shores, the Tria's government should charge money for using the beaches, and these money spend on replenishing the sand. The writer concludes that this policy will improve the island's tourist industry in the long run. This conclusion is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully studied in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.
First of all, the originator of the argument avers that charging money from tourists for using island's beaches will not disappoint the visitors and allow committee to collect enough money to fulfill the policy. However, this statement is not supported properly. In fact, tourists may be discouraged by this idea or may consider that this additional expenditure is too burdensome and thus they may abstain from the journey to the island. Moreover, the collected money may not be enough to implement the policy in particular if the touristic flow will decrease. In other words, the policy may be harmful and ineffective.
The second evidence which is given to us is that replenishing the sand will help to tackle erosion of island beach. The main evidence is that this action works well on the island of Baria. However, are these islands similar to each other? Is the cause of the beach's erosion same? Perhaps the Baria's situation may be tackled by the replenishing the sand. However, the likeliness exists that the implementation of the policy will not solve the problem if it does not address the root of the problem. Replenished sand may be taken away by water or undergo erosion again. Consequently, the blind author's belief does not supported properly and thus may not lead to the expected result.
Additionally to it, the argument claims that the proposed policy will improve island's tourist industry due to the possibility that it will preserve Tria's buildings and beaches. However, why do we think that tourists visit the island solely because of its beaches and buildings. Perhaps the island is well-know for its wild nature and rare or endangered species. Consequently, even positive fulfillment of the policy will not attract new visitors. Moreover, as we said above the charging money from tourists may discourage many of them to visit the island and thus the policy, probably, will worsen the current situation.
In conclusion, the writer states that fulfillment of the policy will allow government to collect enough money to repeat neighboring policy and it will improve the island's tourist industry. However, the given evidence has failed to buttress this conclusion. In fact, the policy may discourage visitors, thus enough money may not be levied. Even if the policy fulfills, it may not solve the problem and thus the author's conclusion is unwarranted.
- Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans general 70
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing."During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Exper 60
- TPO-32 - Independent Writing TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?Because the world is changing so quickly, people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the pastUse specific reasons and examples to 77
- 19 10 2017 Many people are using credit cards or loans to run up huge personal debts that they may be unable to repay It should therefore be made more difficult for individuals to borrow large amounts of money What are your opinion on this Give reasons fo 77
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company."Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One 87
Comments
Hello.
Hello.
1) The essay which you give me as an example was written on slightly different topic but this subtle distinction has changed the meaning of the argument.
my essay: Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand.
the link essay: Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using
the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand.
This short phrase: " it will reduce the number of people using the beaches " is important and lead to distinct analysis due to the fact that I was given no data that tourist activity lead to the problem.
2)'Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches.' I completely accept this data and cannot argue against it. And I argue against charging money to tackle problem in the first argument.
for 1) yes, the text is a
for 1) yes, the text is a little bit different, but no great difference on arguments.
for 2) you will have to argue it, because maybe there are other reasons to cause the erosion of the sand.
About the third paragraph I
About the third paragraph I would prefer to know what is wrong with it.
And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term. (piece of argument)
my goal was to prove that even positive fulfillment of policy may not have expected result due to possibility that tourist may visit the island because of many reasons but charging money may discourage them to do so. IN other words: preserved buildings and shores do not guarantee Tria's touristic success.
There is nothing wrong with
There is nothing wrong with the last sentence:
And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.
it is not: Tria's tourist industry will be successful
Hello, my reader.
Hello, my reader.
Please answer on my comments. I ask you because I try to find mistakes in my analysis. I don to pointlessly argue but try to understand my mistakes.
Thank you.
P.s. Perhaps outline of this argument may be helpful.
condition 1:
condition 1:
Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. //There might be other environmental factors which have led to depletion of the sand shores.
condition 2:
Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. //there is no guarantee that the charges will raise enough money.
condition 3:
Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. //it works for A, it doesn't mean it will work for B
----------------------
The comments are put in comments list which will be answered later after all essay evaluations finished. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Hello, my reader.
Hello, my reader.
1) there is a problem I cannot figure out how I can conclude that author proposes that people is the root of the problem.
In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand.
It seems that the author wants to merely solve the problem by this awkward means.
In the argument given as an example the situation is different due to the fact that information about tourists' supposed negative impact is given plainly.
My goal is to find a clue to analyze this theme properly.
2) secondly, I was told that I always must argue against a conclusion. So I did it.
I reread my third argument and I would like if your look at it.
Additionally to it, the argument claims that the proposed policy will improve island's tourist industry due to the possibility that it will preserve Tria's buildings and beaches. However, is this conclusion supported properly? The answer is "no" due to the likeliness that fulfillment of the policy may not levy enough money to replenish that beaches' sand and moreover, the charging money from tourists may have lasting negative aftermath on island industry in particular this policy creates negative image of the island. In fact, it is much easier to spoil reputation than get it back. To sum up, the tourist industry of the island may not improved but instead may worsen.
How is it?
Thank you. Hope to receive your answer soon.
p.s. know that the celerity of the answer is not up to you. So, I patiently wait for the answer. Thank you.
for 1), the author wants to
for 1), the author wants to put the reasons to People, but there are other factors. This is very normal and often to see in argument topics. So we need to keep this in mind always. From A, we can't get B. maybe C.
for 2), you can do something, but for this topic, we already have three arguments, you may not have time to argue:
condition 1:
Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches.
condition 2:
Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand.
condition 3:
Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms.
conclusion:
And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.
-------------------------
Most essay topics only have two conditions, so we should argue the conclusion for sure, but once it has three conditions, we can ignore the conclusion because there is no time left or ETS doesn't want us to argue.
So It is very important to figure out the structure of the arguments.
Hello.
Hello.
I completely concur that structure of an argument is crucial element for writing a decent essay.
You said to me that all structure of arguments is similar except for monkey's case)
I am inspired your clear and reasonable analysis of argument, so, I want to try for myself. Please, estimate these arguments and my dissection of them. The goal is to understand with you help the structure of the ETS arguments prompts.
1) The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops.
"Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that there are currently no hobby shops in southeastern Grilldon. When our researchers conducted a poll of area residents, 88 percent of those who responded indicated that they would welcome the opening of a hobby shop in southeastern Grilldon. Grilldon is in a region of the nation in which the hobby business has increased by 300 percent during the past decade. In addition, Grilldon has a very large population of retirees, a demographic with ample time to devote to hobbies. We therefore recommend that you choose southeastern Grilldon as the site for your next HobCo Hobby Shop. We predict that a shop in this area will draw a steady stream of enthusiastic new HobCo customers."
Analysis of an argument #1
"Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon.
1) We discovered that there are currently no hobby shops in southeastern Grilldon. When our researchers conducted a poll of area residents, 88 percent of those who responded indicated that they would welcome the opening of a hobby shop in southeastern Grilldon.
//perhaps local residents buy items for hobby via the internet; the dwellers’ acceptance of a hobby shop does not mean that they will buy anything.//
2) Grilldon is in a region of the nation in which the hobby business has increased by 300 percent during the past decade. In addition, Grilldon has a very large population of retirees, a demographic with ample time to devote to hobbies.
//the increase may be substituted by stagnation, actually it is a natural way of things; the increase may not mean that people will buy items in the new story, for instance, they may be too expensive; the town’s retirees may not be prone to hobby, for example, they may lead active life style or their life devoted to grandchildren//
The conclusion) We therefore recommend that you choose southeastern Grilldon as the site for your next HobCo Hobby Shop. We predict that a shop in this area will draw a steady stream of enthusiastic new HobCo customers." //the author speaks about the town as a whole thus southeastern Grildon as a good choice was not supported; local people may not buy the hobco’s items.//
so, the questions are
do my dissection of the argument correct? if it is not, give the correct one? please.
do my explanations are correct? If they are not, I would like to know where I am mistaken.
Thank you.
Eugene.
Both are OK.
Both are OK.
The following appeared as a
The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Analysis of the second argument.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. (this is a background information which I should accept).
1) In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. //I should demonstrate that perhaps the Central Plaza committee was correct, perhaps, there was not enough enforcement; or initial problem was not connected with skateboarding, for instance, a new rival store lured its clients.//
2) Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. //perhaps nobody skate in Monroe Park, for instance, because of inconvenient park’s location or floor quality which does not allow teens to do it; in other words, permission may not mean that teenagers use it for skateboarding//
3) In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza." //the change may not bring expected result//
Do my dissection of structure of argument correct?
What about my supposed responses?
Thank you.
No, you argued wrong. Here
No, you argued wrongly. Here you need to prove that skateboard users are problem makers.
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
The argument goes here:
'Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches.'
read a sample:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-letter-he…
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2314 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.03 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.623 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.99 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.76 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5