-
ngocdiep1510
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:39 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Hi everyone,
I'm going to take the GMAT next week and now start to write my very first essay. Please help me to rate it. Thank you very much for your help!!
"Topic: The Saluda Consolidated High School offers more than 200 different courses from which its students can choose. A much smaller private school down the street offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, but it consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does. By eliminating at least half of the courses offered there and focusing on a basic curriculum, we could improve student performance at Consolidated and also save many tax dollars."
The argument claims that by removing at least half of the courses offered in the Saluda Consolidated High School and focusing on a basic curriculum, performance of students here could be improved and many tax dollars are also saved. As evidence, the author cites the fact that a smaller private school consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does and the reason accounts for this success is that the smaller school offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, lower than half of those offered by Consolidated. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that since a lower percentage of students in the Consolidated enters college than that percentage in the smaller school, the performance of Consolidated's students is not as good as that of students from the smaller school. This is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between students' performance and the proportion of students entering college. There may be other factors accounting for this fact. For example, students at the Consolidated are encouraged to run their own businesses instead of entering college or many realizes that they can pursue their careers without the need of college degree. If the argument had provided evidence that higher proportion of students entering college means better students' performance, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that by reducing the number of courses, the Consolidated could improve student performance. This statement is a stretch as there is no clear evidence or statistics to prove the relationship between the number of courses offered and student performance. Based solely on the example of a smaller school, it is very unconvincing to state this way. The better student performance in smaller school may be due to its better quality of teacher or better quality of students. The argument could have been much clearer if it compares two schools with similar background, except for the curriculum.
Finally, the lesson of the smaller school cannot ensure the success for other school because this is only one particular case and it will vary greatly from schools to schools due to their differences. Without further statistics, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I'm going to take the GMAT next week and now start to write my very first essay. Please help me to rate it. Thank you very much for your help!!
"Topic: The Saluda Consolidated High School offers more than 200 different courses from which its students can choose. A much smaller private school down the street offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, but it consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does. By eliminating at least half of the courses offered there and focusing on a basic curriculum, we could improve student performance at Consolidated and also save many tax dollars."
The argument claims that by removing at least half of the courses offered in the Saluda Consolidated High School and focusing on a basic curriculum, performance of students here could be improved and many tax dollars are also saved. As evidence, the author cites the fact that a smaller private school consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does and the reason accounts for this success is that the smaller school offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, lower than half of those offered by Consolidated. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that since a lower percentage of students in the Consolidated enters college than that percentage in the smaller school, the performance of Consolidated's students is not as good as that of students from the smaller school. This is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between students' performance and the proportion of students entering college. There may be other factors accounting for this fact. For example, students at the Consolidated are encouraged to run their own businesses instead of entering college or many realizes that they can pursue their careers without the need of college degree. If the argument had provided evidence that higher proportion of students entering college means better students' performance, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that by reducing the number of courses, the Consolidated could improve student performance. This statement is a stretch as there is no clear evidence or statistics to prove the relationship between the number of courses offered and student performance. Based solely on the example of a smaller school, it is very unconvincing to state this way. The better student performance in smaller school may be due to its better quality of teacher or better quality of students. The argument could have been much clearer if it compares two schools with similar background, except for the curriculum.
Finally, the lesson of the smaller school cannot ensure the success for other school because this is only one particular case and it will vary greatly from schools to schools due to their differences. Without further statistics, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
