Jagdish's Page for international Education

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Sample argument analysis

The following appeared in an advertisement for United Motors trucks:

"Last year the local television-news program In Focus reported in its annual car-and-truck safety survey that over the course of the last ten years United Motors vehicles were involved in at least thirty percent fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles built by any other single manufacturer. Now United is developing a one-of-a-kind computerized crash warning system for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone concerned with safety who is in the market for a new truck this year should buy a United Motors truck."

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.

Essay No. 1

(composed under a 30-minute time limit)

Score (on the 0-6 scale): 6

First I turn to the statistic given in the ad. The "30%" statistic does not differentiate trucks from cars. We are asked to assume that this safety statustic is accurate even for trucks alone - in other words, 30% fewer United Motors trucks (not just vehicles generally) have been involved in fatal accidents than other trucks. It is also presumed that the 10-year record for safety applies to the company's new line of trucks. But is this necessarily so? The ad offers no proof or evidence to back up this implicit claim. An astute consumer would require more information about the safety of United trucks (not cars) compared to other trucks manufactured during the most recent year or two. (However, there might not be enough data yet about this year's models.) Finally, the statistic cannot be relied upon as accurate unless we know that the survey was fair and objective. (What if United motors is a sponsor of In Focus? Could we trust the truthfulness of accuracy of the statistics? No!)

These are not the only reasons why the statistic in the ad does not give us enough evidence to support the argument that new United trucks are safer than other new trucks. The statistic really says nothing explicit about why this is the case. Is it because United trucks are safer? Or becase United truck drivers are better drivers? Or because of some other reason? Once the company can prove that the safety of its trucks is the reason why they are in fewer accidents, then the statistic becomes valid to the intelligent consumer deciding bewteen a United truck and another brand.

Besides the assumptions about the statistic in the ad, another assumption involves second part of the ad - about the new crash warning system United is developing for its trucks. Presumably the new system will not be available for a while because it is still being developed. However, the ad tries to convince us to buy a new United truck now based on this evidence, which is illogical. Once United's trucks have the system and it can be proven that the system adds to the safety of the driver and other occupants, then I might be swayed toward purchasing a United truck as opposed to another brand on the basis of the safety factor. But not until then.

In sum, in light of all of the assumptions listed above needed for the argument to "have teeth" but missing from the ad, no consumer should buy a United truck based soley on this ad's false appeal to safety. Consumers should not be hoodwinked by an advertisement like this one that leaves out important information about how an impressive statistic is arrived at, or that attempts to entice the consumer based on impressive but unproven R&D (especiaaly when today's United Motors truck buyers are the ones who actually paying for the R&D but don't receive the benefits from it.)

Commentary on Essay No. 1 (Score: 6)

This outstanding essay exhibits very strong analytical and organizational skills, as well as a firm grasp of language, grammar and syntax. Ultimately it is the essay's incisive, comprehensive and well-organized analysis—not its mechanical aspects (grammar, syntax, diction)—that places it squarely in the highest score category.

The essay commences with an introductory paragraph that is rhetorically effective, then proceeds to identify nearly all of the major problems with the argument, in a logical sequence, each point connected with the next by helpful transitions. In the three middle paragraphs the writer challenges the following assumptions underlying the argument:

that the statistical datum is an accurate gauge of the comparative safety level of United Motors trucks (rather than vehicles generally)
that the statistical datum—which involves prior years—is an accurate reflection of current conditions
that the survey results are unbiased
that the past fatal-accident record of United Motors trucks is due to the truck's safety feature (rather than to some other factor)
that the new crash-warning system is included in current United Motors trucks and serves its intended purpose

The only major flaw in the argument that this essay neglects to identify and discuss is that the statistic fails to account for non-fatal accidents. However, this single oversight is far outweighed by what is otherwise a comprehensive critique.

The final paragraph serves as a stylistic and rhetorically-effective recap. (However, the essay's closing parenthetical remark about R&D is unnecessary and appears to be an afterthought.)

Admittedly, the essay does suffer from various problems in grammar and expression. These problems vary widely:

improper idiom ("differentiate trucks from cars")
several instances of redundancy ("The ad offers no proof or evidence," "reasons why" and "because of some other reason")
faulty parallelism ("deciding between a United truck and another brand" and "safety of United trucks ... compared to other trucks")
loose syntax ("in light of all of the assumptions listed above needed for the argument to "have teeth" but missing from the ad...").

However, these flaws are neither major nor frequent enough to warrant lowering the essay's score to a 5. A GRE or GMAT reader would overlook this essay's occasional word omissions and other typos, since they are infrequent and do not interfere with the writer's communication.

Essay No. 2

(composed under a 30-minute time limit)

Score (on the 0-6 scale): 5

United Motors ad is questionable because the only information they provide regarding the safety of their trucks is based on insufficient past and future evidence. The safety survey they mention was reported by In Focus a year ago and was conducted over a period of ten years. This information does not support the safety aspects of this year's United Motors trucks. United Motors mentions that their vehicles were involved in at least thirty percent few fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles built by any other single manufacturer. However, they fail to mention the fatal accidents to passengers and any statistics for non-fatal automotive accidents involving their brand vehicle.

In their ad, the company describes the one-of-a-kind computerized crash warning system they are developing for all of their trucks. However, this new technology is not currently installed in this year's model, so this is not a valid persuasion for a consumer to buy a United Motors truck this year. Consumers would be more likely to buy a future model that included this computerized crash warning feature. In addition, a crash warning system does not make United Motor's vehicles safer. It simply warns the driver that they are about to crash, which most likely would be apparent to the driver without the computerized system in the first place.

However, the United Motor's advertisement does use some manipulative language that could persuade the unquestioning consumer. In their pitch, they use statistics and a safety-survey to convince the consumer. United Motors also mentions that the survey was reported by a local television- news program, and many people believe what they see or read in the news. The automotive manufacturer also states that it is "clear" that this year's car buyers should purchase a United Motors truck. However, despite the effectiveness this advertisement may have on some car buyers, analytically United Motors ad is weak and unconvincing.

Commentary on Essay No. 2 (Score: 5)

This strong response demonstrates solid analytical and organizational abilities, as well as a solid control of language, grammar and syntax.

In Paragraphs 2 and 3 the writer identifies the following problematic aspects of the argument:

that the statistics do not necessarily indicate current safety levels
that the statistics fail to account for non-fatal accidents
that the new crash-warning system is not included in current United Motors trucks
that the new crash-warning system might not actually enhance safety

The writer's critique of each but the last aspect (which critique is weak and unpersuasive) is adequate. However, the writer neglects to identify any of three additional, and important, potential problems with the argument:

that the survey encompassed cars as well as trucks, possibly undermining the statistic's relevance
that the argument provides no evidence that the survey sample was of sufficient size and representativeness to provide a reliable indication of United Motors vehicles' comparative safety record
that the stellar past safety record of United Motors trucks might be due to some factor other than their safety

These omissions contribute significantly to keeping this essay out of the 6 category. Also contributing to this essay's sub-optimal score is the essay's final paragraph, which is not a critique of the argument itself (either its line of reasoning, use of evidence, or internal logic), but rather little more than a claim about consumer gullibility.

The essay contains a scant few diction problems ("not a valid persuasion" and "despite the effectiveness this advertisement may have..."). The essay's otherwise clear expression and complete absence of grammatical, syntax, language, spelling or punctuation errors help distinguish it from lower-scoring essays.

Essay No. 3

(composed under a 30-minute time limit)

Score (on the 0-6 scale): 4

1) the survey only covered fatal accidents. It should also cover nonfatal accidents which also help to prove the safety of one type of truck vs. other trucks.

2) Vehicles include more than trucks. They also includes cars. THerefore, the survey is only vaild to help prove the company's argumnet for trucks, and therefore is not very convincing on this basis.

3) In Focus could be paid by United Motors to conduct a survey in a wya that shows what the company wants consumers to see to help sell their trucks. We cannot trust the numbers. If its a show like 60 Minutes then maybe the survey would be beliveable. We need more information about this to evaluate the argument.

The second exibit is the crash warning system, which is in current development. This fact is also not convincing to prove the argument. There are two questionable assumptions that underlie this evidence:

1) The system is installed on the trucks available now from truck dealers. (If not, then the conclusion that "anyone in the market for a new truck THIS YEAR should buy a United track" is invalid. A future feature is irrelevant for consumers this year.

2) We are asked to assume that the warning system will perform its purpose - namely, to help prevent accidents. (The argument contains no evidence to support this assumption.)

In conclusion, the evidence might persuade some consumers to to buy a truck from United because the evidence sounds convincing, like many advertsiements. However, upon further analysis the questionable assumptions need to be proven before a more skeptical consumer could accept the argument and justify buying a United truck on the basis of safety. The argument would be strengthened by pointing out other features that make United trucks better than other trucks (price, comfort, cargo space, reliability, etc). The argument would be more logically sound if IN Foucs provided more facts to help prove the assumptions listed in this essay: the crash warning system is available this year and makes United trucks even safer than before.

Commentary on Essay No. 3 (Score: 4)

This essay exhibits better-than-average organizational skills but mere adequacy in developing an analytical critique and in overall written expression.

The essay shows that the writer recognizes most problematic aspects of the argument — specifically:

that the survey failed to account for non-fatal accidents
that the survey encompassed cars as well as trucks, possibly undermining the survey's relevance
that the survey is potentially biased
that the new crash-warning system might not be included in current United Motors trucks
that the new crash-warning system is not shown to actually enhance safety

When it comes to developing each point of critique, however, the essay is not especially effective. (The writer's second numbered point of critique is particularly inarticulate.) Although the essay fails to identify certain other problems with the argument (see my foregoing commentary on the higher-scoring essays), these omissions do not contribute significantly to keeping this essay out of a higher score category (5 or 6).

The essay's final paragraph is a merely adequate attempt to recapitulate the essay's salient points. More importantly, the additional types of evidence listed in this paragraph as means of strengthening the argument are in fact irrelevant to it. This problem leaves the reader with a distinctively negative impression of the writer's analytical ability, and contributes to keeping the essay out of the 5 category.

The essay is well organized — into a two-prong analysis with enumerated points of critique under each prong. (The writer's enumeration of these points is a useful device but does not in itself serve to enhance the essay's score.) The essay's clear structure helps significantly to keep this essay out of a lower score category.

The essay demonstrates adequate control of language, grammar, and other aspects of written expression. Nevertheless, the essay suffers from numerous problems in these areas, ranging from awkward strings of prepositional phrases (e.g., "...in this argument in evidence of the conclusion" and "what the company wants consumers to see to help sell their trucks") to vague and unclear pronoun references (e.g., "The second exhibit is the crash warning system, which is in current development. This fact..." and "We cannot trust the numbers. If its a show like 60 Minutes") to questionable parallelism ("to base the given conclusion on this stitistic is faulty reasoning"). Such problems are frequent and bothersome enough to help keep this essay out of a higher score category. Spelling and punctuation problems, although frequent, do not interfere with meaning and hence do not adversely impact the essay's score.

Essay No. 4

(composed under a 30-minute time limit)

Score (on the 0-6 scale): 3

On rereading the advertisement I can conclude that the cars AND trucks were under consideration and that the trucks definitely did not get a clean bill of health compared to the cars hence they are trying to develop a computerised system to warn the driver in advance of the crashes their trucks seem to be prone to.Till they work out a way to make them less prone to accidents and not just warn me of the accident Iam headed towards , as a buyer I'd just focus on the cars.

It is true that fatal-crash-statistics incline buyers towards the manufacturer but to cement the deal I think the manufacturer needs to focus on their R&D contribution towards making their cars safer than the competitors.How are the United Motors'cars safer ? By what means provided by them are the fatalities reduced? Is it extra air bags? Is it the design? Could it be all time on headlights? The advertiser should be careful to not presume that the buyer has seen the TV programme and is already aware of all this.This is an advertisement where United Motors should focus on reiterating the facts which make their vehicles on sale NOW a safer bet for the discriminating buyer.

Commentary on Essay No. 4 (Score: 3)

This limited essay provides some reasoned analysis of the argument but suffers from bothersome problems with the presentation and development of its critique as well as with grammar, syntax and diction.

The essay identifies four questionable assumptions underlying the argument:

that a past safety record provides a reliable indication of a current one
that a future development is relevant to the truck's current safety level
that a statistic about all vehicles (cars and trucks) applies as well to trucks only
that the crash-warning system currently under development will be effective in enhancing safety

However, none of the points of critique is stated articulately, and none is fully developed. Also, the essay's conclusion (in Paragraph 2) about United Motors' truck safety record is unjustified. Moreover, the essay fails to identify certain other key problems with the argument. (See my foregoing commentary on the higher-scoring essays.)

The essay is not well organized; the ideas do not flow logically and naturally from one point to the next. Also, the essay demonstrates less-than-adequate control of expression. Such problems are frequent, ranging from misplaced modifying phrases ("As a prospective buyer this advertisement") to awkward or inappropriate idioms ("jumps to talking about," "a clean bill of health" and "cement the deal") to loose and confusing syntax (Paragraph 2's first sentence). These and other problems of expression contribute to keeping this essay out of the 4 category. Frequent punctuation problems interfere somewhat with meaning and hence further contribute to a score that is lower than it otherwise might be.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Argument sample

"The profits from Reflex Health Club’s expansion into the new sport of tagball have not met projected expectations. Although Reflex has stocked an extensive array of tagball equipment and provided a state-of-the-art tagball court, equipment sales have been sluggish. The new tagball court is seeing extensive and steady customer traffic, but it is used mainly by veteran tagball players who have already made the extensive initial equipment outlay(apparently purchasing mainly from mail order discounters)who have no further interest in or need for purchasing additional gear other than occasional small-ticket replacements for worn parts. Charging a fee for use of the court is not feasible, since tagball players would just relocate to the public courts downtown. Therefore, Reflex Health Club will show better profit results overall by closing the tagball court, disposing of remaining stock, and instead doubling the existing space and equipment stock for the steadily profitable sport of racquetball."

Sample Analysis

The idea that a business should divest itself of slow-moving product lines and invest in more consistently demanded products initially seems like common sense. However, a deeper analysis of the issue suggests unsupported assumptions are made and that many other factors have to be taken into account before such a decision can be characterized as more profitable overall.

The argument above claims a simple relationship between tagball and profitability: sales of equipment equals profit, and the lack of sales means that business resources should be directed elsewhere. This one-dimensional approach ignores the long-term possibilities of building and sustaining a client base. A steady stream of veteran players using the facilities at Reflex now means more exposure for the club in general, and the possibility of considerable free word-of-mouth advertising. Veteran players may recruit and bring in new players (especially if the club provides incentives) who might then invest in the more expensive starter equipment. Finally, veteran players might take an interest in the club’s other activities because of their presence here, thus leading to more spending on fees and equipment for the club’s other lines of products and services.

The argument’s second contention, that charging a court fee would drive players away, is an unfounded assumption with no supporting evidence. Additional information might show that players prefer Reflex Health Club for other reasons—such as location, community, or the superior quality of the tagball court—and would therefore be willing to pay a fee to play there. A fee that included other incentives such as equipment discounts or trial use of the club’s other facilities, might expand and extend business even further.

Finally, the argument that tagball space and resources would be better devoted to racquetball is another unexamined assumption. Racquetball might exhibit the same pattern of high initial costs followed by slow, but steady spending, so it doesn’t follow that increasing stock and space would produce more profit than similar income related to tagball. Furthermore, additional information might show that racquetball players aren’t exceeding the capacity of the existing facilities, and so expanded court space might go unused and not provide any additional income. The argument does not explore the possibility that tagball’s potential for growth and expansion exceeds the growth potential of racquetball in the long run.

The argument to increase the racquetball facilities would be strengthened by evidence to show both that there’s a demand for additional racquetball space, and that sources of income such as court fees make racquetball more profitable overall in the long term than tagball. The argument to keep tagball would be strengthened by evidence that additional fees, new player recruitment, and increased business in general due to tagball player traffic would net greater business benefits than the switch to racquetball.

A company has announced that it wishes to build a large factory near your community.

... Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new influence on your community. Do you support or oppose the factory? Explain your position.

Score 4.0

As a freshly graduated chemist,I am seeking for a suitable job,it will be great to have a good job in my home town.However,in my opinion,I think that this factory establishment will harm more than it benefits.So I object this wish of this company.The advantages and dis advantages are listed to indicate why I thought in this way although it may oppose my personal affairs.

Building a factory have many benefits such as,increasing job opportunities for the residents of the city.For me,it will be great because I may have a good job and it will be close to my house so I wouldnot suffer from the transportation problems.In addition,this factory will make its products to be more convenient and cheaper for the residents of the town.And finally,it will help the national economy to be refreshed and its products may be sold in the foreign countries so it provides the country with the foreign currencies.

On the other hand,the building of a big factory inside a populatory place is outweighed with many risks.this factory will pollute our natural air and our clean water.In addition,it will rush the population arround it.So,this water and gas wastes of this factory will affect the environment and the people's health badly which show the great risk of establishment of this factory.Besides,this factory establishment will affect the population of my town greatly because it will be surely accompanied by the high increase in the number of people in my city.And therefore,new houses and stores will be needed.This fast growth will affect my town badly because it is unplanned and it will cause the percentage of randomness to increase.

In conclusion,building a big factory is economically beneficial but environmentally harmful.So I can safely oppose the wish of this company to build a big factory in my home town with all my neighbours.Not for few benefits,we have to take all these risks.

Score5.0

A company has announced that it wishes to build a large factory near our community. To be frank, I have mixed emotions about this.

Obviously, there are some advantages having such a factory nearby. For example, it can provides more job opportunities and many people may work in the factory. What is more, it also gives a good chance for the development of other business in our community such as shops, theatres and restaurants. Furthermore, the products the factory manufactures will improve our quality of living.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages building a factory here. First, it will disturb the quiescence of our community. Once the factory is set up, a lot of people will rush into our community to work, and the road will get crowded. To transfer the raw materials the factory needs, there will be many trucks coming and going through the streets, and the noise will disturb residents and it is unsafe for our children who always play freely in the streets before.

Second, the factory will produce many waste products each day, and there will be much waste water coming out from the factory and it will pollute our rivers. We do not want to have to see hundreds and thousands tons of waste piled near our houses, and we do not want to see our nearby rivers turning into black dishes either. After weighing the advantages and disadvantages, I decide to oppose to set up such a factory near our community because we need quiet surrounding, blue sky and clean rivers.

Score 5.0

Weather it is beneficial to build a large factory near our community is a prevalent topic undergoing serious debate. Two different opinions obviously exist to support and to oppose. After pondering the opinions from several aspects, personally, I agree with the idea that it is beneficial to build a large factory near our community.

By comparing the advantage and disadvantage they will get, people judge which role they should hold. In my opinion, the advantage in this case is superior than the disadvantage. we can see it below. The main reason for my propensity for the choice is that the factory will supply lots of employment opportunities for society, especially the people of the community nearby. The unemployment will decrease and the people’s standard of living will increase in some degree. so, no doubt, people will accept the factory willingly and rapidly.

Another reason why I prefer to the statement lies in the fact that with the developing of the factory, many other establishments will be founded around it. These establishments will make the lives of the people of the community more convenient. For example, drugstores, restaurants, even hospital, new bus stop will be built up. People here will enjoy the convenience the factory brings. It is undeniable that the factory will bring some problems, such as the noise, air pollution. Whatever, these disadvantage will be limited into a low level so that they can not contaminate the environment of the community.

From what has been discussed above, we can safely draw the conclusion that it is beneficial to build a large factory near our community.