Writing Feedback / GRE Argument essay: Recall on pet food [3]

PROMPT: A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.

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 if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

A pet food company got a recent recall on their pet food product and a test on their product showed that their pet food was chemically safe. The company argues to not go into further investigation to prove that they are responsible for the accusation. Before this argument is made we need to identify all the assumptions that weaken and question the argument. Specifically we need to know where the complaints are coming from, whether the pet food test results are reliable, and consider the various external factors that could have lead to the complaints.

There were complaints of pet's being sick after eating the company's pet food. The assumption here is that the complaints are a significant issue to the value of the company. We do not know where the complaints are coming from. If the complaints were from loyal customers that are familiar with the company's products, that should be a problem. However, if the complaints were from a few people, or even people that work at other rival pet companies, these complaints would be bias and not sufficient to consider the issue serious. We need to know how many people complained, which population complained (general or specific) to be able to understand the cope of the issue. If we do not know the specifics of the complaint, then the argument remains valid for these reasons.

The company has also ran some tests on their recalled pet food and it was approved that it was chemically safe. The assumption here is that the tests are reliable to determine the safety of their product. This lab testing will be weak if the company's testing standards were done without a third party, specifically lab researcher that test according to a non-biased standard. In order for the test to be considered sound, it must be repeated more than once and whether the chemicals in the food is safe for all pets, not just considered "safe." For the argument fails apart with their claims, unless it is justified by reliable test measures on their pet food.

Lastly, the test is the only evidence we have to prove that the pet foods are chemically safe. The pet foods passing the test points to the ingredients in the pet food as the result of the pet's becoming sick by the complaints. In contrary, we do not whether external factors could have influenced pet sickness. What is the workers that bagged the pet food had unsanitary practices? If may also be possible that the food was expired and mislabeled. Without ruling out other variables, the argument is not valid if it only relies on the food test results.

**

This essay was written under 30 minutes timed. Please provide helpful feedback and how you would grade my essay based on the GRE scale (0-6) Thank you very much!!

Link below:
ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/scoring_guide

Writing Feedback / GRE issue essay: Should the foundation of education be based on morality or logical reasoning? [3]

PROMPT: Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above.

***

We need to apply both logical reasoning and morality in education but we should base education more on the foundation of logical reasoning because morality can be supported through critical thinking and evidence. Throughout history, we have demonstrated the importance of how logical thinking can produce a moral society through our court system to decide on issues, higher thinking to advance human life and technology.

In the national court system, everyone in a court case demonstrates critical thinking skills to decide what will be the logical choice for an issue. If the people involved in murder case did not use evidence, such as the people involved, the setting, photos, and more details to solve a case, the case would be based on bias and superficial reasoning. People use reason to decide whether the defendant is found guilty and we also decide court rulings based on critical thinking and listening to other people's perspectives. This is how moral decisions are made in the court system by listening to other people's observation and their analysis of the case.

Additionally, higher thinking helps human race and technology to advance in society. The recent project to occupy mars demonstrate individuals that use logical reasoning and science to hopefully have people live in another planet. Logical reasoning, with the combine efforts of science and perseverance demonstrate that we are not just thinking about being a moral person in society but now people are doing moral works for the future of human society.

However, it is not safe to just dismiss morality in education because we need to practice morality with logical reasoning in learning. For example, it is logically sound for us to test and experiment to produce results, but we need to test based on ethical standards. We do not want to test animals and human lives at the risk of developing a new product. If we do not use ethical measures we are undoing logical reasoning because one's life being used at the stake of a project that may or may not work.

In sum, it is important to base the foundation of education on logical reasoning. We have been using logic to advance society and even for the good of society.

***
I wrote this essay under timed conditions. Please give me feedback! (and how would you score it on the GRE scale 0-6) THANK YOU!

Writing Feedback / Does more knowledge make ideas complex? [3]

Please help me with feedback on how I can improve my essay. Thank you! **

PROMPT:
As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Knowledge is vague because knowledge can be anything from applicable knowledge to theoretical knowledge. An example of an applicable knowledge is how to save money where as theoretical knowledge is how the earth is created. The difference between the two types of knowledge is that applicable knowledge has a reality to it; it bears action that proves that the knowledge is clear and useful. The latter knowledge remains complex because it is ideas without proof, other words ideas that cannot be proven because it has no actions. We must understand the complexities on gaining more knowledge based on the type of knowledge we receive.

Knowledge is clear cut when there are actions to prove that the knowledge is correct. For example, we can say the Earth is round because space explorers and scientists proved that the earth was round by mathematical calculations and literal explorations out to space that show the earth is round. Another example applies to how we have occupations because we practiced and studied it. Firefighters are not just firefighters because they wear fire suits. Firefighter know the science of fire, rescue people that are caught in burning projects, and they even have specific skill sets to show that they are firefighters. These examples show that knowledge when there is proof makes ideas clear to us because this idea is now a fact that everyone can believe as truth.

However some knowledge is not so clear, this type of knowledge is theoretical. Theoretical knowledge is ideas that when left unexplored, makes people wonder deeply and not have a clear sense of understanding. For example, the existence of aliens is knowledge without actions or proof that is why people have a hard time understanding what aliens are, or even if they exist. This type of knowledge is hard to comprehend and people just think of more "what if" possibilities. Ultimately, ideas left unsolved are mysterious. Just because an idea is incomprehensible does not mean it is unchangeable. Over time, ideas can turn into reality as people make the effort to understand why something happens. For example before scientific discoveries, we thought the sun rotated round the earth, it was a mysterious concept. Now we understand the earth rotates around the planet because of evidence that proves the knowledge.

In sum, we cannot say more knowledge makes things clear or mysterious, it really depends on the type of knowledge we seek to fill our minds with. If there is definite proof through evidence or reality through experience, we can acknowledge the idea clearly. If we leave ideas unresolved and we just build more ideas on top of other ideas, our understanding becomes complex.