嘉文博译留学网- GMAT作文加油站

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

“This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers but they can also raise a city's expenses and increase the demand for its services. ”

Instructions:

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.

Sample Essay

In this editorial the author argues that improvements to existing city services as well as new services should be paid for by developers rather than taxpayers. In support of this opinion, the author points out that developer can make large profits from building projects, and that these projects increase the demand for city services and raise the city's expenses. I disagree with the author's opinion for two reasons.

First, the fact that developers stand to make profits from their projects is not a good reason to require them to pay more than their fair share of the costs of services. In fact, to require them to do this in order to win approval of their projects is tantamount to bribery. City officials would find it difficult to justify a policy that endorsed this practice. Moreover, the adoption of such a practice would discourage the development of new buildings in the city.

Second, the increase in demand for city services as well as the increase in the city's expenses will most likely be offset by the tax revenues these projects generate. Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur expenses that are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the author's concern about these issues is unfounded.

In conclusion, I find the author's reasoning on this issue unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that the city would be harmed financially by approving new building projects.

GMAT ARGUMENT类作文范文-77

Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

“In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash. An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill. Incinerators can be adapted to generate moderate amounts of electricity, and ash residue from some types of trash can be used to condition garden soil. ”

Instructions:

Sample Essay

This newspaper editorial concludes that our city should build a plant for burning trash in order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills. The author adds that an incinerator could offer economic benefits as well, since incinerators can be adapted to generate small amounts of electricity for other uses, and since ash residue from some kinds of trash can be used as a soil conditioner. Even if these claims are true, the author's argument is unconvincing in three important respects.

To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating trash. It is possible, for example, that respiratory problems resulting from the air pollution caused by burning trash might be so extensive that they would outweigh the health risks associated with landfills. If so, the author's conclusion that switching to incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously under mined.

Secondly, the author assumes that discontinuing landfill operations would abate the heath threats they now pose. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that irreversible environmental damage to subterranean water supplies, for example, has already occurred. In this event, changing from landfills to incinerators might not avoid or abate serious public health problems.

Thirdly, the author's implicit claim that incinerators are economically advantageous to landfills is poorly supported. Only two small economic benefits of incineration are mentioned, while the costs associated with either burning trash or switching refuse disposal systems are ignored. In all likelihood, such costs would be significant, and may very well outweigh the economic benefits.

In conclusion, the author's argument provides inadequate justification for switching from one disposal system to the other. As it stands, the argument takes into account only a limited number of benefits from the change, while addressing none of its costs. To better evaluate the argument, we must first examine all the health risks posed by each refuse disposal system, and conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of each system, accounting for the cost of the new system, the cost of the changeover itself, and the expected costs to the community of health problems resulting from each system.

GMAT ARGUMENT类作文范文-78

Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.

“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer. They could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money. ”

Instructions:

Sample Essay

In this editorial the author argues that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer. In support of this claim the author reasons that since wages paid to employees should increase as the risk of physical injury increases, the converse should be true as well. Hence, by decreasing the risk of injury, employers could decrease the wages paid to workers and thereby save money. This argument is unconvincing for two reasons.

To begin with, the author assumes that because companies would agree that as risk of injury increases wages should also increase, they would also agree that as risk decreases wages should also decrease accordingly. This is tantamount to the assumption that risk of injury is the primary factor that determines workers' wages. It is obvious that few employers, and even fewer employees, would agree that this is the case. To adopt this position one would have to disregard education, experience, and skill as equally important factors in determining the wages paid to workers.

Secondly, the author's reasoning suggests that the only benefit of a safer workplace is the savings employers could realize from lower wages. This is obviously not true. The costs associated with accidents on the job could far outweigh any savings that could be realized by paying workers lower wages.

In conclusion, the author's argument is unconvincing. Risk of injury is an important factor to consider in determining the wages paid to workers but is not the only such factor. Furthermore, there are far better reasons for employers to make the workplace safer than the one presented by the author.

GMAT ARGUMENT类作文范文-79

Topic:

The following appeared as part of a company memorandum.

“Adopting an official code of ethics regarding business practices may in the long run do our company more harm than good in the public eye. When one of our competitors received unfavorable publicity for violating its own code of ethics, it got more attention from the media than it would have if it had no such code. Rather than adopt an official code of ethics, therefore, we should instead conduct a publicity campaign that stresses the importance of protecting the environment and assisting charitable organizations.”

Instructions:

Sample Essay

This company memorandum suggests that in lieu of adopting an official code of ethics, the company should conduct a publicity campaign that stresses the importance of promoting certain societal interests. The reason for the suggestion is that an official code of ethics might harm the company in the public eye because a competing company received unfavorable publicity for violating its own ethics code. This argument is unconvincing, since it depends on several unwarranted assumptions as well as arguing against its own conclusion.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the two companies are sufficiently similar to ensure the same consequences of adopting an ethics code for this company as for its competitor. The competitor may have adopted an entirely different code from the one this company might adopt-perhaps with unrealistic standards not embraced by any other companies. Perhaps the competitor's violation was extremely egregious, amounting to an aberration among businesses of its type; or perhaps one notorious executive is solely responsible for the competitor's violation. Any of these scenarios, it true, would show that the two companies are dissimilar in ways relevant to the likelihood that this company will experience similar violations and similar publicity if it adopts any ethics code.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that the competitor was damaged by its code violation and the resulting publicity more than it would have been had it not violated its code. Just as likely, however, the violation was necessary to ensure a certain level of profitability or to protect other important interests. Without knowing the extent and nature of the damage resulting from the bad publicity or the reason for the violation, we cannot accept the author's conclusion.

Thirdly, the author's proposal is inconsistent with the author's conclusion about the consequences of adopting an ethics code. The author suggests that instead of adopting an ethics code, this company should stress "the importance of protecting the environment and assisting charitable organizations." This proposal is tantamount to adopting an ethics code. In this sense, the author suggests going against his own advice that the company should not adopt such a code.

In conclusion, differences between this company and its competitor may undermine the author's conclusion that this company should not adopt an ethics code. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the nature of the competitor's ethics code and about the nature and extent of the violation. To strengthen the argument, the author must accord his advice with his conclusion that the company should not adopt an ethics code.

GMAT ARGUMENT类作文范文-80

Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a daily newspaper.

“Although forecasts of presidential elections based on opinion polls measure current voter reference, many voters keep changing their minds about whom they prefer until the last few days before the balloting. Some do not even make a final decision until they enter the voting booth. Forecasts based on opinion polls are therefore little better at predicting election outcomes than a random guess would be. ”

Instructions:

Sample Essay

In this editorial the author asserts that opinion polls are little better than random guesses in predicting outcomes of presidential elections. The author's basis for this assertion is that opinion polls measure only the preferences of voters at the time of the poll and that many voters change their preferences several time before voting some remaining undecided until the moment they cast their vote. The author's reasoning is unconvincing in two critical respects.

First of all, the predictions based on random guessing are such that the greater the number of candidates, the less likely the prediction will be correct. The reason for this is obvious: random guessing, in order to be random, requires that no outside information be allowed to influence the guess. Predictions based on opinion polls, on the other hand, will differ considerably from those based on random guesses simply because outside information will influence the result. For example, in a four person race, random guessing would yield the correct prediction 25 percent of the time, whereas the percentage of correct predictions based on opinion polls would be much higher. The reason for this disparity is simple. Opinion polls enable us to narrow the choices. That is, opinion polls serve to reduce the number of viable candidates in the voter's mind and thereby increase the likelihood that the prediction based on them will be correct.

In addition, while it is true that many voters change their minds several times before voting, and that some remain undecided until entering the voting booth, this is not true of everyone. Moreover, people who do change their minds frequently or wait until the last moment to decide have typically narrowed their choice to a few candidates.

In conclusion, the author is mistaken in believing that random guessing would be as reliable as opinion polls in predicting the outcomes of presidential elections.

嘉文博译郑重声明：

(1)

(2)

本网站所有案例及留学文书作品（包括“个人陈述”Personal Statement，“目的陈述”Statement of Purpose, “动机函”Motivation Letter,“推荐信”Recommendations / Referemces “， (小)短文”Essays，“学习计划”Study Plan，“研究计划”（Research Proposal），“签证文书”Visa Application Documents 及“签证申诉信”Appeal Letter等等），版权均为嘉文博译所拥有。未经许可，不得私自转载，违者自负法律责任。仅供留学申请者在学习参考，不作其他任何用途。任何整句整段的抄袭，均有可能与其他访问本网站者当年递交的申请材料构成雷同，而遭到国外院校录取委员会“雷同探测器”软件的检测。一经发现，后果严重，导致申请失败。本网站对此概不负责。