|
|
Sample Response to Real GRE Argument Questions
Topic # 3: The following
is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper
"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the
damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the
traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually
caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the
construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed
bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have
been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead,
the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years
than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the
winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for
the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former
Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at
fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the
River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic
problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems
twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and
did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a
personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the
argument do not support such an accusation.
First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the
simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no
evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had
anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic
problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply
approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the
bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction
of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any
resulting traffic problems.
In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a
wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic
problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is
a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly
over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be.
The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more
durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for
approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a
wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and
probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds
were used.
Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated
much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This
groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for
the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic
loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the
Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by
heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct
comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.
Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of
Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the
bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of
anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing
the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant
of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as
unsupported in the author's argument.
In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without
providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument
convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant
approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company
that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should
have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the
bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's
decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design.
Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not
well reasoned.
(605 words) |
