Writing Feedback / "Liber's company mission and financial problems" GRE argument analysis. [4]

This is a GRE argument analysis. If possible score from 6.

The following is a letter from an editor at Liber Publishing Company to the company's president.
"In recent years, Liber has unfortunately moved away from its original mission: to publish the works of regional small-town authors instead of those of big-city authors. Just last year, 90 percent of the novels we published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. Although this change must have been intended to increase profits, it has obviously backfired, because Liber is now in serious financial trouble. The only way to address this problem is to return to our original mission. If we return to publishing only the works of regional small-town authors, our financial troubles will soon be resolved."

My response: This letter advise Liber Publishing company president to publish only the works of regional small town authors. According to the author, though publishing small-town authors works is the original mission of the company, 90% of the novels published by the company in the previous year were written by big-city authors and he/she believe that deviation from this mission is the cause of financial troubles in the company. The evidence provided by the author is not sufficient to decide that the company deviated from its mission. Also, no convincing evidence supports his/her claim that publishing only small-town authors novel would solve the financial problems of the company.

First of all, it is not clear whether the original mission of the company was restated or not. Many companies, start with limited missions and when they succeed and expand they change their missions, so possibly the company changed its mission and vision and the original mission is nothing now but history. In such case, the author objections regarding percent of small-town novel became meaningless.

Second, what is the definition of small-town author? Is it mean authors who were born in small towns, who lived part of their lives in small towns, who write about small towns or who live currently in small towns. If we considered the first three definitions, the company may not be deviated from its mission as in these three cases, small-town author should not necessarily leave in a small town.

Third, What is the evidence that publishing only the work of small-town authors would solve the financial problems and what is the evidence that the financial problems are caused by the company selection of novels. Many market causes could be involved.

In sum, we need to know whether the original mission is still valid and we need to know how did the company define small-town author. More analysis is required about the financial problems of the company to decide whether publishing only small-town authors work will help or not.

Writing Feedback / "to fund the building of affordable housing for students" - GRE Arguments [3]

The argument:

Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.

My response:

This argument introduced a suggestion to commission a famous architect to design a building that could polarize tourists, students and donation to the university. According to the arguer claim, this will solve the problem of housing in the University. The author didn't support his claims with citations of any study or previous experience. The lack of these supporting evidences make the benefit of the project questionable for many reasons.

First, the arguer didn't provide any evidence regarding the economic feasibility of the project. While he claimed that tourists will like to visit the new building and will pay for it, he didn't provide any data about the status of tourism in the area; for example, number of tourists annually visit the area and average payments from each tourist. He/she didn't mention any similar successful experiences that can support his/her claim. He/she didn't mention anything about type of tourists in the area and whether they will be interested in visiting the new building or not. To support the claims, well designed studies regarding economic feasibility of the project, similar successful experiences and tourists trends in the area and nearby areas are required.

Second, the speaker didn't consider the influence of tourism on education in the University. Will the university be able to achieve balance between education and tourism. Can the university accommodate large numbers of tourists with their vehicles and noise. To what extent the students will pay from their privacy and concentration in their study.

Third, The arguer expected that the new building would polarize more students and donations. This expectations are not supported. Possibly, donors may consider this new building a type of extravagance and abuse of their funds, they may prefer to support institutes that invest in education and research, rather than institutes invest in buildings and tourism. The new beautiful building may attract some students; however, most excellent students depend on ranking of the university, its research and educational capabilities rather than its architecture in their selections. Many high ranked universities have horrible dorms, but excellent students still compete hardly to join these universities despite its below average housing. So, the quality of students whom decisions would be influenced by the architecture of the new building is questionable.

In sum, the suggestion is not supported by convincing evidences concerning its economic or practical feasibility. To assess it better, studies are needed regarding expected economic cost and outcome, and donors and students trends. The ability of the university to accommodate tourists and more students should be considered and evaluated form different prospects.

I have a real problem in my GRE analytical writing score, your feedback is highly required and appreciated. If possible rate this response from score 6.