GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:
"It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver's license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another driving test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unexpected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly."

The author's argument that 15-year-olds should be eligible to drive if the elderly people can renew their driver's license without having to pass another driving test is unconvincing. In drawing this conclusion, the author not only makes a vague comparison between 15-year-olds and elderly people, but also makes an unsubstantiated assumption that 15-year-olds can drive just as well as the elderly people if not better. Furthermore, the author assumes that 15-year-olds have qualities that would make them better drivers than elderly people.

In the argument, the author bases the conclusion on a vague statement that 15-year-olds "have much better" driving qualities than elderly people such as hand-eye coordination, eyesight, and reflexes. The term "better" is meaningless without providing statistics or research data to prove the difference between the two age groups and how that impacts their driving eligibility. Also, the author fails to address whether the qualities he uses to compare the 15-year-olds to the elderly people are even relevant to their eligibility for a license. For instance, the author states that 15-year-olds recover from injuries quicker. There is no proof that this is a need for eligibility so we cannot accept it as valid. The author uses vague terms and unsupported evidence so we cannot conclude that 15-year-olds are better drivers than the elderly people.

Moreover, the author fails to consider the qualities that would make 15-year-olds worse drivers than elderly people. For example, 15-year-olds have never driven before whereas most elderly people have driven the vast majority of their life, which gives them more driving experience and makes less likely to get into an accident. On the other hand, 15-year-olds have no driving experience and more likely to get into an accident, which would pose a threat to public safety.

Additionally, the author claims that 15-year olds are less like to be confused by unexpected developments in unfamiliar surrounds. But, there is no evidence to suggest this is a fact. In contrary, we could say that many 15-year-olds may not have a developed brain and thus they would more likely to be confused than the elderly people, who are more likely to have a developed brain and so can handle driving with patience and clarity.

The author could strengthen the argument if he had provided information substantiating the qualities that the 15-year-olds have meets the requirements necessary for eligibility. He could also strengthen the argument if he were to provide concrete evidence about how the 15-year-olds have qualities that prove that they would be better drivers than the elderly people.

As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.