Writing Feedback / GRE Argument Essay: Adjust the shower-heads [3]

Dear everyone, I am taking GRE in 10 days. Please help me succeed with my essay. Big thanks from China!

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

My response:

The owner is arguing for adjusting the showerheads in all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex, say that restricting the maximum water flow in the first three buildings will obviously result in considerable savings, has not attracted many complaints, and do that in all the apartment building will increase their profits dramatically. The manager should be convinced if all these premises are proved reliable. However, the author doesn't do a good job in this respect, and there is number of questions needed to be answered to evaluate the prediction.

Although the actual readings of the water usage of the first three buildings have not come out yet, the owner is confident enough to believe there will be a big decrease of water usage. However, people might want to ask, when they maximum water flow is reduced to one third of before, will the residents still take showers for the usual length of time? Maybe people will just prolong their shower time so that they can make themselves with the showering experience, or, to retaliate the unpopular change, which is essential for their living, they will use even more water that before. Therefore, the owner could simply rule out these possibilities, which may well lead to totally different results. If these proved to be true, that is, the adjustment of the showerheads has not actually saved water, the manager should not do the same thing to the other buildings and it will not increase profits for them.

The second question needs to be addressed is that if the people in the first three buildings with showerheads adjusted really do not have problems with the change or not. The owner claims that no problems have been reported, saying few complaints have been received. As a matter of fact, a month might be to short for people to feel the pain of not enough water flow for their showers. As time passed, the residents might finally find the change unbearable, taking numerous complaints to the owner. By then, it would be too late to react, I am afraid. So the owner might want to do a door-to-door survey of residents who are affected, and find out how they truly feel this problem. If they were ok, that would be great. If not, the owner might not want to so optimistically predict they will increase their profits, since they will have to change it back, otherwise, the residents could choose to leave.

The third question is that if all the apartment buildings are occupied by similar groups of people. It might be the residents of the first three buildings don't have such high expectations for their living facilities, or they pay much less than others, so they are fine with the change. In contrast, residents in other buildings might pay much more and therefore expect much more, so that any negative change will cause serious complaints and protests. Therefore, the answer to this question is extremely important for the manager to decide whether it is really worthwhile to make the same adjustments to other buildings. If not, they might lose profits as a result.

The apartment building owner's conclusion is the showerhead adjustment will increase their profits. However, he or she fails address the questions I have listed, namely the actual readings of the water usage, the true opinions of the residents of the first three buildings, and the likely reactions of the other buildings of the other buildings with the expected reduced water flow. If the answers to any of these questions don't turn to the owner's favor, he or she may not conclude that the showerhead adjustments will reduce their costs and thereby increase their profits.

Writing Feedback / GRE Issue Essay: To obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. [4]

Dear everyone, I am taking GRE in 10 days. Please help me succeed with my essay. Big thanks from China!

Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
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.

Laws are supposed to protect every one's rights and keep a society in order. On this ground, I agree that as members of a society, people should obey that society's laws; no matter they are just or not. If certain laws are perceived unjust, people should use other means to change the law, instead of disobeying or resisting it. This is because the authority of laws are vitally important to a society, perceiving a law just or unjust could be oftentimes subjective, and there are plenty of other means to fight against the so called unjust laws.

If people just consider obeying just laws their responsibilities, even the just laws will not be duly effective. The reason is that when people choose to disobey the unjust laws, such acts will make the society lose the spirit of law to a certain extent. For example, many factories in China are violating the environmental laws. These factories dump their highly dangerous waste materials into the river, blow the dangerous dust into the air, and dump dangerous chemicals into some disserted land. When people ask them why they are ignoring the laws, which prohibit them from doing that, they will argue that these laws are unjust, on the grounds that if they obey the laws and purchase expensive machines to clean up their waste, they will go profitless. The result of such behaviors makes China a very lawless society. In China few people take laws seriously; when they break the laws, they will try to find powerful government officials to resolve the problems at hand. Some people might not agree with my argument, saying disobeying unjust laws will not make people do the same to just laws. The reason, they further claim, is that people disobey unjust laws for these laws are not protecting their rights, and they obey just laws because they are not made against them. In other words, people will obey just laws even though when they choose not to obey some other laws. However, from my point of view, it is more complicated than these defenders realize. I agree that nobody will disobey any laws in a society, but I will argue that some laws are considered unjust by some people, but could be considered just by others.

That will lead us to the second reason for not disobeying the so-called unjust laws, namely, it is often subjective to determine a law is just or not. For any laws in a society, you will find people who think they are not just. Recently, a British citizen was found guilty in Saudi Arabia because he tried to consume alcohol there. The country forbids people drinking any alcohol, which is a very serious crime. Many people, especially the Briton's families find the law unusually severe to punish their father. However, that does not mean, if you live in Saudi Arabia, you should ignore their laws, since people in that country really think the law is fair because of their religions. At this point, some people might raise a number of questions regarding the people who are not in favor of certain law. They will ask, what about people who hold different view? Are we just going to ignore their concerns? Are they supposed just to accept these unfavorable laws just for the sake for others? That is certainly not the case. However, I am not sure if these people should just choose to disobey or resist these laws so that they can be changed.

As I argued before, disobeying these laws will hurt the foundation of the society. Moreover, it could cause a great deal of chaos and tragedies. For instance, even though it sounds a little extreme, some drivers might find the traffic laws sometimes unjust, even though other people feel differently. These drivers try to ignore the traffic lights, marching out even when the red light is on ahead of them (believe me, it happens often in China). As a result, it is not surprising many car accidents follow these bad choices. Despite of disobeying the unjust laws, people actually have many other means to fight against them. They could go on the street to protest, just like what Martin Luther King and Gandhi did, they could voice their opinions through news media, and so on. However, the best way is through legislature. To disobey the law will make you an unlawful person, by trying to change the law through legislations, however, will reach the same goal, while still maintaining the spirit of the law in that society. Some people might say disobeying the unjust laws are more effective, in that it is easier to put pressure on the government. I agree with that, but I still maintain the other way is more effective in the long run. People will see, in the process, even when you are not in favor of some laws, you respect the spirit of the legal system. That is a good thing.

Few people have difficulties to obey the just laws, while many people find it hard to obey laws that bite them. However, it is everyone's responsibility to obey laws even though they think they are unjust. At the same time, people should use other means such as protesting, rallies, and best of all, legislation, to change them. Only that can a society be fair for everybody.

Writing Feedback / GRE Issue Essay: The Best Way for a Society to Prepare Its Young People for Leadership [3]

Please critique my GRE essay. I truly appreciate your time and inputs. Thanks in advance!

The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.

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.

Some value cooperation more, while some others value competition more. However, the truth is, both of them are important, and people should never advocate just one of them, since in any enterprise, cooperation and competition are always there. Especially for the young people of today, to instill in them a sense of both cooperation and competition is even more important.

Competition is surely very important. There is nowhere more obvious to show this in sports. As a caption of a basketball team in a school, she has to try the best to organize her team to beat the other team. At this point, between the two opposing team, to compete to see who is better is vitally important. It is the same for leaders of different countries. As a leader of China, for example, the president need to do his best to get more benefits for his own country. She will have to negotiate with leaders from other countries and reach the best deals. It is a competition of wisdom, confidence and courage. The world tomorrow will not be totally different with today, the competition will be still facing the leaders in government, industry, or any other fields.

To prepare young people to love competition is not only necessary, but also very important, for the enterprises they lead, to say the least, and for the whole industry or society, to say it at large. For example, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, must always lead his company to design the best iPhones. The reason is not only that he just loves to improve the quality of their products, but also he must always have their competitors such as Samsung in mind. Only because of the competition, and only because Tim Cook have to compete with other companies, Apple keeps making better iPhones. And as their customers, people can benefit from their competitions.

However, just let the young people know the importance of competition is not the whole story. Some people will argue that while competition is important, cooperation is more important today. At the present time, few people know all the tricks or have the ability to finish one single project. I certainly agree with that. Let's take China and the US for example. China and the US are competing in almost every aspect, such as in business, military power, and political systems. However, the two countries have to cooperate as well. Apple's products are designed in the US, but made in Chinese factories. So the two countries must not just compete.

While I agree cooperation is important, I will not go so far as to say that we should only promote cooperation in young people. The point is to let them to know both competition and cooperation are important. They should learn how to do well in both so that they can be true leaders of tomorrow.

Writing Feedback / To make extraordinary efforts to save endangered animal or plant species [3]

Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

Here is my response. Please correct my essay. I would really appreciate your help. It means a lot for me. Thanks in advance.

As the most powerful species on the planet, human beings should make every effort possible to save endangered animal and species. It is true that to do this often means we have to spend a lot of money and some people will lose their jobs, however, it also can potentially benefit us economically and make our environment better, not to mention that every species have their own rights to exist on the earth.

Human beings have been causing more and more species disappear from the earth. Since there are so many people on the earth, and every one naturally needs food, we have done so much to exploit the planet. We burn up the forest to make land available for farming, we dig up the ground for coal and other natural resources, and we march into the sea to catch any fish which is tasty and healthy for us to eat. In the process, we have destroyed many animals' living environments, as a result of which they go extinct. It is just natural selection, some people might argue. I concede that it is true natural selection have its own part to play, however, since we have dominated the earth, the species have been disappearing in an unprecedented rate.

The alarming decrease of so many species should make us aware the serious consequences that followed. The nature is an ecosystem, just like the human body. Of the human body, if one finger is hurt, the whole body will feel the pain. So is the ecosystem. If one animal disappeared from the face of the earth, the other species will be affected. This is why I would not agree with some people's argument, which claims that some species are not important, and we can afford to just let them die.

We should make extraordinary efforts to protect the endangered species, not only because they are important for the ecosystem, which matters a lot for our living conditions, also because they have their own rights to exist. We are the most powerful species, but it doesn't follow we could do whatever we want, without taking other species into consideration. As long as they don't cause harm to us, they should be left alone. We should respect their lives just like our own.

Some people might agree with me that we should protect the endangered species, but disagree that we should make extraordinary efforts to do so. To save these animals and birds might cost a lot, which could be used for other purposes, they would protest. There are still people dying in Africa from hunger and preventable diseases, and we should spend money to save these people instead of animals. I think to save people is absolutely important, but saving endangered species is important as well. As I have argued before, the plants and the animals are important for the ecosystem. If the overall ecosystem is affected, it might not turn into human being's favor. For example, the plants on the mountains can save the rainwater, which goes underground and is finally used by people. They can also prevent the mountain slides when there are huge rainfalls. Mountain slides have caused many disasters. Therefore, in a sense, to save endangered species is to save human beings.

To save endangered species also create jobs. Take pandas in China for instance. Many people have seen pandas in zoos. To take care of pandas needs a great number of people, probably more than taking care of baby. The zoo will have to hire people to build habitats for the pandas, people who feed pandas, people who check pandas when they are sick, people who nurse them when they are having babies, and so on. So while to protect endangered species often means to keep natural habitats from being developed economically, as a result of which there will be less jobs created, there will be other jobs created in taking care of the endangered species.

Saving endangered species does not only benefit them, but also benefit human beings. It could protect the diversity of species, save human lives and create jobs. It also benefits us economically, which are more valuable than the money we are going to spend. In sum, to save these plants and animals in danger is to save ourselves, and generations after us.

Writing Feedback / Analyze an Argument Task: Physical Fitness of Corpora's Citizens [4]

Hi there,
I've been preparing GRE writing by myself for a long time, with little improvement. I badly need your advices. Please review my writing below and give me feedbacks. Thank you!

Best,
Jianfeng Guo

The following appeared in a heart magazine published in Corpora.

"Medical experts say that only one-quarter of Corpora's citizens meet the current standards for adequate physical fitness, even though twenty years ago, one half of all of Corpora's citizens met the standards as then defined. 2. But these experts are mistaken when they suggest that spending too much time using computers has caused a decline in fitness. 3 Since overall fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also highest, it is clear that using computers has not made citizens less physically fit.4. Instead, as shown by this year's unusually low expenditures on fitness-related products and services, the recent decline in the economy is most likely the cause, 5 and fitness levels will improve when the economy does."

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.

My response:

This is a fairly weak argument. While denying that people's spending too much time using computers in Corpora as a cause to the physical fitness decline, the author tries to prove that the real cause is the recent decline in the economy. However, the argument is suffered with a number of questionable assumptions, which make the argument much less convincing.

First of all, the author points out there is a decline in physical fitness among citizens in Corpora, by citing what the medical experts have said. There are two main problems in the experts' statement, namely, assuming the population in Corpora is the same as 20 years ago and the physical standards used this time are the same as 20 years' ago. Because neither the author nor the experts point out whether the population has been more or less the same during these 20 years, we can't be sure of this. There might be much more people now in Corpora, and many of them are senior citizens. Because of their ages, they might be not as healthy and strong as young people. In contrast, the percent of young people in Corpora might be much higher than now. As a result, it is only natural there are less people meeting the physical fitness standards. If this happens to be true, the decline in the economy would not be the main cause of the decline of physical fitness levels.

Besides the population change, the physical standards could have changed too. It seems the author believes that the standards are the same, otherwise the statistics then and now can not be compared. But the author doesn't say that. Suppose the standards used this time is much higher than that of 20 years ago, people should be surprised the percentage of fit people has dropped from one half to one quarter. Furthermore, are the survey done by the same medical experts? If not, are the using in the same methodologies in the survey. If either of these two factors are different, people will need to check if it has an influence on the results. Different standards, different people conducting the survey or different methodologies could have made fit percentage decline. In turn, the arguments conclusion will be proved not reliable.

Believing there really is a decline in peoples' fitness in Corpora, the author assumes the lower expenditures on fitness products and services mean there are less people doing exercise. However, exercise with fitness products and going to the gym are not the only ways of getting fit. Citizens can also go to parks jogging, which almost will cost nothing but gas and water. If this is true, the decline in the economy would not be the main cause either.

The author also assumes that there are only two things could cause the fitness decline, namely people's spending too much time on computers and decline in the economy. Since he or she has prove the first reason false, she assumes the second one must be the right answer. In fact, there might be many other alternative explanations.

As what has been stated before, population differences, survey method differences and different standards could be the explanations as well. Therefore, it might not be the economy making the change.

By stating the economy is the real cause, the author also assumes that the economy 20 years ago is better than now. If it is true, the author should better tell us. If it's not, it will undermine her argument.

In conclusion, the argument has left too many questions unanswered and too many assumption unproved. To make it believable, the author would need to provide more statistics concerning the standards used, the demographic statics in Corpora and the economy backgrounds.