Hi, this is the first essay I've written. I used a prompt from the Manhattan GMAT IR/AWA book. I gave myself 30 minutes strictly, though I did not write particularly urgently. I was happy because my Flesch/Flesch-Kincaid scores came out really well, but I am uncomfortable with a number of issues, and would really appreciate your feedback:
1) In re-reading my essay, I found a number of grammatical errors (at least one that I would characterize as glaring).
2) As I wound down to 30 minutes, I decided I did not need a concluding paragraph. In re-reading, I believe I DO need a conclusion, and I could have accomplished it in just two sentences.
3) I did not use any of the few recommended structures/layouts that I've seen for AWA. I believe I have an established voice and style that I'd like to keep if possible. Do you believe, in contrast, that it would be much safer and better to just use a simple recommended structure I find on this forum? If doing so has very little downside but great upside, I would try to adopt the structure from "How to get a 6.0 AWA: My Guide" in this forum.
4) In the same vein, I did not use any of the recommended vocab (at least not purposefully) in tackling the prompt.
I have just started studying a few weeks ago and haven't been able to dive into AWA prep (and this AWA forum) deeply yet, but I would greatly appreciate if you could grade my essay, given your experience and the other essays you may have read and graded, or seen graded.
PROMPT:
The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.
ESSAY:
This argument is not well-reasoned, reaching an extreme conclusion using both questionable premises and flawed logic extending from those premises.
Initially, the author of the argument establishes that the country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per capita when compared with rates of traffic accidents in neighboring countries. Because in the "vast majority of cases" the courts of Tarquinia find one or more drivers to be at fault, the argument presumes that, in fact, the drivers of Tarquinia are the key reason for traffic accidents. Here, the author's argument fails to consider both what it means in a Tarquinian court to be a driver "at fault," and whether the decisions made by the Tarquinian court should be treated as fact. Conceivably, to be "at fault" in a Tarquinian court does not indicate that a driver directly caused an accident through negligence or malice. Additionally, it's possible that the courts of Tarquinia are untrustworthy, and their decisions unwarranted.
Even if the above premises are taken as true, the author of the argument fails to convincingly prove that his policy of increasing the likelihood of injury (really, of death) to drivers in the case of an accident would eliminate the behavior he assumes now causes many traffic accidents. The author ignores a number of other factors which influence driver behavior and ought to be considered in creating a policy to reduce Tarquinian traffic accidents - road and street quality, city planning, automobile quality, distractions such as mobile phones, and more. Instead, the author's policy, to abolish in-automobile driver protections and add a spike to the steering wheel of each new car, assumes that the reason drivers behave in a manner which causes a higher rate of traffic accidents is because the drivers feel safe, and therefore empowered to drive more recklessly. If Tarquinians are humans without a dramatically different culture of life and death, it seems unlikely that the protections of seat belts and air bags would encourage drivers to behave in a manner that increases the likelihood of getting hit by thousands of pounds of steel and gasoline.
Perhaps, though, feeling protected does cause Tarquinian drivers to be more reckless. In that case, the author's recommended policy adjustments still do not serve as logical solutions to the problem he has presented. First, the vast majority of cars on the road for many years would likely still be old cars, with seatbelts, airbags, and a noticeable lack of spikes-pointed-at-drivers'-hearts. The policy would presumably have no effect on the drivers of these cars. Second, it seems safe to assume that new cars under the author's policy would not be very popular. If Tarquinian drivers decided instead to retain old cars - technologically inferior, run-down cars - for years longer than they used to, the policy could actually increase traffic accidents due to decreasing the average quality of car on the road. Finally, to severely endanger drivers might eliminate traffic accidents as new cars took to the road - by eliminating traffic! The ramifications of eliminating all traffic would certainly be as significant, if not much more so, as the currently elevated rate of traffic accidents.
Thank you SO MUCH!!!
1) In re-reading my essay, I found a number of grammatical errors (at least one that I would characterize as glaring).
2) As I wound down to 30 minutes, I decided I did not need a concluding paragraph. In re-reading, I believe I DO need a conclusion, and I could have accomplished it in just two sentences.
3) I did not use any of the few recommended structures/layouts that I've seen for AWA. I believe I have an established voice and style that I'd like to keep if possible. Do you believe, in contrast, that it would be much safer and better to just use a simple recommended structure I find on this forum? If doing so has very little downside but great upside, I would try to adopt the structure from "How to get a 6.0 AWA: My Guide" in this forum.
4) In the same vein, I did not use any of the recommended vocab (at least not purposefully) in tackling the prompt.
I have just started studying a few weeks ago and haven't been able to dive into AWA prep (and this AWA forum) deeply yet, but I would greatly appreciate if you could grade my essay, given your experience and the other essays you may have read and graded, or seen graded.
PROMPT:
The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.
ESSAY:
This argument is not well-reasoned, reaching an extreme conclusion using both questionable premises and flawed logic extending from those premises.
Initially, the author of the argument establishes that the country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per capita when compared with rates of traffic accidents in neighboring countries. Because in the "vast majority of cases" the courts of Tarquinia find one or more drivers to be at fault, the argument presumes that, in fact, the drivers of Tarquinia are the key reason for traffic accidents. Here, the author's argument fails to consider both what it means in a Tarquinian court to be a driver "at fault," and whether the decisions made by the Tarquinian court should be treated as fact. Conceivably, to be "at fault" in a Tarquinian court does not indicate that a driver directly caused an accident through negligence or malice. Additionally, it's possible that the courts of Tarquinia are untrustworthy, and their decisions unwarranted.
Even if the above premises are taken as true, the author of the argument fails to convincingly prove that his policy of increasing the likelihood of injury (really, of death) to drivers in the case of an accident would eliminate the behavior he assumes now causes many traffic accidents. The author ignores a number of other factors which influence driver behavior and ought to be considered in creating a policy to reduce Tarquinian traffic accidents - road and street quality, city planning, automobile quality, distractions such as mobile phones, and more. Instead, the author's policy, to abolish in-automobile driver protections and add a spike to the steering wheel of each new car, assumes that the reason drivers behave in a manner which causes a higher rate of traffic accidents is because the drivers feel safe, and therefore empowered to drive more recklessly. If Tarquinians are humans without a dramatically different culture of life and death, it seems unlikely that the protections of seat belts and air bags would encourage drivers to behave in a manner that increases the likelihood of getting hit by thousands of pounds of steel and gasoline.
Perhaps, though, feeling protected does cause Tarquinian drivers to be more reckless. In that case, the author's recommended policy adjustments still do not serve as logical solutions to the problem he has presented. First, the vast majority of cars on the road for many years would likely still be old cars, with seatbelts, airbags, and a noticeable lack of spikes-pointed-at-drivers'-hearts. The policy would presumably have no effect on the drivers of these cars. Second, it seems safe to assume that new cars under the author's policy would not be very popular. If Tarquinian drivers decided instead to retain old cars - technologically inferior, run-down cars - for years longer than they used to, the policy could actually increase traffic accidents due to decreasing the average quality of car on the road. Finally, to severely endanger drivers might eliminate traffic accidents as new cars took to the road - by eliminating traffic! The ramifications of eliminating all traffic would certainly be as significant, if not much more so, as the currently elevated rate of traffic accidents.
Thank you SO MUCH!!!
