-
OneTwoThreeFour
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:57 am
- Thanked: 1 times
This is my first GMAT; Tell me what you guys think and please rate 
Note: In my essay, I included some evidence which are actually not supported in reality. The GMAT never mentions that any evidence given should be absolutely factual in nature- so I included some evidences which I learned from school, but the source I cited is false. Lastly, I know the essay has some spelling mistakes and grammar issues, but I did not change them b/c I want to the keep the essay in its original condition as much as possible. Anyway, here you go boys and girls:
Prompt: "The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin."
Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument asserts that if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, causing both its economy and national identity to be endangered. The argument is certainly strong and brash in tone, but underlying evidence and research actually suggest the contrary- Increased immigration can actually bolster the domestic economy, and the whole argument on weakening the fabric of national identity is salacious.
America is the perfect battle ground for illegal immigration. Proponents of this argument in the United States usually garner their evidence based on firebrands announcers on radio and television, who consistently spew out the reasons of the illegal immigration are bad because of these following reasons: Illegal immigrants take away American jobs, overflow our schools, and most of them don't even speak English. But, according to studies done by Economists, such as Arnold Kling of George Mason University, increased illegal immigration could actually increase the GDP of the domestic economy. It is true that illegal immigrants do come across the border illegally, but once they get here, they usually work jobs that Americans don't want. A recent study done by the American Enterprise Institute has found out that the industries with the greatest opening and available jobs are in the Sanitation, farming, and construction sector. These are jobs most Americans don't want because of the physical grueling and social costs associated with them. Without an influx of immigrants taking these jobs, American job workers who do take these jobs would be paid an artificially inflated wage, wages that could be allocated more efficiently elsewhere.
The second point that illegal Americans are dampening the fabric of a country's national fabric is contentious in nature. America after all, is a land founded by immigrations. It is true that most Americans now speak English and are proud of the red, white and blue, but who are we to judge this has to be the American culture for eternality. After all, before the pilgrims landed in America, it was a vast wilderness populated by American Natives, whose own view of their land, and in turn, America, is vastly alien to how Americans associate America today. Throughout history, most American territories were actually Spanish and French speaking territories, not English. The true irony of the whole situation is that the strongest proponents against illegal immigrants because they hurt the fabric of American culture are occupying in states such as Texas and Arizona, lands that once belonged to the Spanish crown, which had a latin culture similar to the ones possessed by the illegal immigrants themselves.
Given the fact that economics studies have proved illegal immigration actually bolsters the domestic economy and history has proven that a country's national fabric is evolving in nature, the argument, "if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered cannot stand on firm ground. Finally, the argument proposes a solution that "because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin". A country's people is a product of the great migrations in the history of humankind. After all, would the average American be pleased if they were asked to be returned to the country of their origin? Even the Native Americans themesleves, who populated America for millennia, were originally migrants from Asia- and those original migrants from Asia migrated from Africa. Our ancestors were evolved from chimpanzees and other sapiens. If we truly want to trace our root to the original ancestor, then that would the very first organism that was created on Earth- the single-cell bacteria. Kicking out illegal immigrants from a host country is as valid as the argument of having a single cell bacteria kicking out the people that has been "living" in the country the longest, since the bacteria has been in the host country longer than any groups of its people. Once again, the argument has no merit and is baseless in all possible nature.
Note: In my essay, I included some evidence which are actually not supported in reality. The GMAT never mentions that any evidence given should be absolutely factual in nature- so I included some evidences which I learned from school, but the source I cited is false. Lastly, I know the essay has some spelling mistakes and grammar issues, but I did not change them b/c I want to the keep the essay in its original condition as much as possible. Anyway, here you go boys and girls: Prompt: "The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin."
Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument asserts that if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, causing both its economy and national identity to be endangered. The argument is certainly strong and brash in tone, but underlying evidence and research actually suggest the contrary- Increased immigration can actually bolster the domestic economy, and the whole argument on weakening the fabric of national identity is salacious.
America is the perfect battle ground for illegal immigration. Proponents of this argument in the United States usually garner their evidence based on firebrands announcers on radio and television, who consistently spew out the reasons of the illegal immigration are bad because of these following reasons: Illegal immigrants take away American jobs, overflow our schools, and most of them don't even speak English. But, according to studies done by Economists, such as Arnold Kling of George Mason University, increased illegal immigration could actually increase the GDP of the domestic economy. It is true that illegal immigrants do come across the border illegally, but once they get here, they usually work jobs that Americans don't want. A recent study done by the American Enterprise Institute has found out that the industries with the greatest opening and available jobs are in the Sanitation, farming, and construction sector. These are jobs most Americans don't want because of the physical grueling and social costs associated with them. Without an influx of immigrants taking these jobs, American job workers who do take these jobs would be paid an artificially inflated wage, wages that could be allocated more efficiently elsewhere.
The second point that illegal Americans are dampening the fabric of a country's national fabric is contentious in nature. America after all, is a land founded by immigrations. It is true that most Americans now speak English and are proud of the red, white and blue, but who are we to judge this has to be the American culture for eternality. After all, before the pilgrims landed in America, it was a vast wilderness populated by American Natives, whose own view of their land, and in turn, America, is vastly alien to how Americans associate America today. Throughout history, most American territories were actually Spanish and French speaking territories, not English. The true irony of the whole situation is that the strongest proponents against illegal immigrants because they hurt the fabric of American culture are occupying in states such as Texas and Arizona, lands that once belonged to the Spanish crown, which had a latin culture similar to the ones possessed by the illegal immigrants themselves.
Given the fact that economics studies have proved illegal immigration actually bolsters the domestic economy and history has proven that a country's national fabric is evolving in nature, the argument, "if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered cannot stand on firm ground. Finally, the argument proposes a solution that "because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin". A country's people is a product of the great migrations in the history of humankind. After all, would the average American be pleased if they were asked to be returned to the country of their origin? Even the Native Americans themesleves, who populated America for millennia, were originally migrants from Asia- and those original migrants from Asia migrated from Africa. Our ancestors were evolved from chimpanzees and other sapiens. If we truly want to trace our root to the original ancestor, then that would the very first organism that was created on Earth- the single-cell bacteria. Kicking out illegal immigrants from a host country is as valid as the argument of having a single cell bacteria kicking out the people that has been "living" in the country the longest, since the bacteria has been in the host country longer than any groups of its people. Once again, the argument has no merit and is baseless in all possible nature.
