Writing Feedback / 'Adams real estate may be superior to Finches' - GRE argument topic [NEW]

The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty-Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

This argument may lead one to believe that Adams real estate is superior to Finches for reasons ranging from the comparisons between companies annual revenue to the two firms length it took to sell the author's home. Unfortunately the author's blatant assumptions undermine the validity of the entire argument. The author's practice of assuming the markets are the same as ten years ago, Fitch employers would prefer to work full time and the discrepancies in numbers is not by choice, and the homes the two companies sell are identical in value severely weakens his argument.

The author tries to sell us the idea that a major illustration of Fitches incompetence is the fact that it took them longer to sell his house 10 years ago than the it took Adams reality in the previous month. A major problem with this position is the lack of information about the state of markets the author provides us with. He also does not inform us of the selling prices of the 2 houses as a point of reference. Life tells us that it is naïve to assume that something like a housing market can remain constant over ten years. It would be foolish to believe that housing prices don't make a difference in selling time and the author's choice to withhold that piece of information leads one to wonder what the full story is.

The next major assumption that would need to be addressed is the belief that the difference in number of employees and full time employees equates to inferiority. The author does not know if this is by choice on the company's part for reasons beyond lack of income. Many companies chose to limit employers to create a more intimate environment. Fitch may also prefer to keep employees part time to avoid paying benefits. Or it could even be that Fitch is made up of new moms who would prefer to be home with their children for the better part of the day. It could be all of these reasons or none of them. Unfortunately the author didn't do the research needed to substantiate his claim.

Lastly, the theory that the difference in revenues is proof enough to determine superiority deals the final blow. If Fitch sells 20 houses at 100,000 and Adams sells 4 houses at 1,000,000 Adams is going to have the greater revenue but by no means sold more houses. The author's assumptions without going much deeper into the prices of houses being sold along with the accompanying number of houses sold doesn't present one with a fair picture to make an sound decision.

The author may be completely right. Adams reality may be the better company and the right choice for his friend. Unfortunately, the author's decision to make far reaching assumptions without the proper research to support his theories leaves the friend in a position where they may make a very big decision with very little knowledge of the best choice.

Writing Feedback / GRE issue question about the value of scandals [3]

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

It seems every time one turns on the television or reads the daily news there is a scandal loudly waiting for your attention. Whether it has to do with a socialites failed marriage or a politicians indiscretions, they are waiting and willing to distract you from the mundane occurrences of life. Allowing one to disappear into another's troubles. While everyone may need a distraction scandals teeter the dangerous line between factual and opinion and blur the truth with gritty details and salacious whispers. Scandals can never be completely useful because they not only distract one from the intricate details that scaffold these problems, are innately biased, and often simplify the larger issues of society.

With so many scandals to chose form it is hard to focus on just one. The scandal surrounding a politician with accusations of accepting bribery makes it seem like the problem is solely his and the solution was to simply get rid of him. One could argue that learning about these issues gives you a good idea of him as a person and a perfect snapshot of his character. That is simply not true. We as humans are much to complicated and varied in choices and life to be defined by one mistake; a mistake that usually isn't analyzed with supporting characters and variables at play. This oversimpliction scandal not only limits our view of the issue it leads our focus further away from the unbiased truth from when we began. The biased nature of these issues is another point of great concern

One could argue that there is nothing in life that is truly free from bias and to a degree that is true. But the heart of the scandal lies in the storyteller's ability to make it appeal to its audience own need for an escape into another's mistakes. Because of this there will always be a glossing over of the truths of scandals for heightened response. One could even say storytellers do this by any means necessary. Thus helping one become easily distracted from the bigger more complicated issues that dominate our lives.

Lastly, a scandal can never solve major problems because they not only simplify the issue, they distract from the bigger issues that are generally the root of the problem. A scandal makes one believe that is you solve the scandal you solve the problem but sadly that is not true. Scandals are symptoms of larger and messier societal ills that need changing. Unfortunately scandals don't equip you with the necessary knowledge to address that reality.

They may be a nice distraction. They may be good gossip. They may even give some insight to bigger problems in the world. But because of their oversimplification, biased storytelling, and narrow lens scandals will never be able to focus our attention long enough to fix the problems its lays bare.