|
|
Sample Response to Real GRE Argument Questions
Topic # 7: The Trash-Site
Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible
harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the
sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study
revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the
proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained
rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is
true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher
incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the
size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is
pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose
a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such
sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes
built near the sites.
In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current
system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that
therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or
the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the
council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that
showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the
sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living
there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact
that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher
incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical
weaknesses in logic and information presented.
First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not
listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the
study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be
considered much more reliable than one with members with possible
conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of
people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the
trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the
study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and
priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.
Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and
three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a
small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash
sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error
could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that
live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive
were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied
rather than merely a small percentage.
Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related
problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of
other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be
that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems
such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally,
the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the
duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term
effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period
of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could
help to persuade the reader one way or another.
To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative
size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the
sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be
made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be
located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a
slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest
trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the
idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.
In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council
are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The
disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of
the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of
health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash
sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions
on the such sites.
(640 words) |
