-
alex.gellatly
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:27 am
- Thanked: 48 times
- Followed by:16 members
OK I wrote these two articles on an Manhattan CAT. I was just wondering if I am going in the right direction with them. I know some of my examples are a little stupid, but I was crunched for time. Also, what score would one might get for writing articles like these? Thanks
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Issues
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Although the modern information age has opened up channels of communication that never before existed, it, paradoxically, has destroyed the foundation of community by isolating individuals in a technological world that involves little real human interaction."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
MY RESPONSE:
The modern information age has truly opened up new channels of communication that never before existed. People living on the other side of the world can rapidly send a video message to their loved ones back home. However, these new channels have, paradoxically, destroyed the foundation of community and social life by isolating individuals in a technological world.
Firstly, in the past people used to have planned social events which now are decreasing. Although some of these events still exist and perhaps are increasing online, the informal in-person ones have almost been eliminated. For example, before the age of the Internet and cell phones people actually had to plan what they would do for entertainment. Now, people just say that they'll email each other and discuss it later. However, no decisions are ever made and time is simply wasted. For instance, In the 1950's high school students would plan their Saturday afternoon at school on Friday. They would tell each other that they would meet at the ball park and play baseball. Now, however, they say they will make plans online or via cell phone later because they can with the advent of new communication channels. Yet, this makes it more difficult to play because they did not make solid plans. Plans which are not solidified are much easier to break. This is happening across all ages and classes and has caused in person social events to be decreasing and thus caused people to be isolated at home.
In the same way, people are starting to play less and less games in person. For instance, before people used to meet at the chess hall and play real chess with real people. Now, they can simply play with their computer. Yes, one might argue that they can play with real people via the Internet. This is indeed true. However, they are not having real social interaction. To makes matters worse, in the past, after they played chess perhaps they would go out to dinner and discuss a wide variety of topics. Now, once the game is over online, they return to their isolated world. The most important aspect of games is not the act of playing, but the act of interacting with other human beings. Because technology has made this so easy people have become lazy and prefer to stay in their houses. Now, actual human interaction has decreased.
Perhaps most importantly is the Facebook example. Facebook as made communication instant, and no one can deny this fact. However, there is a serious consequence happening. People do not have real friends in the way they used to. They have online friends or "Facebook friends". Now, instead of going out to the movies, playing sports, or shopping together. They can stay at home and do all of these things online. Then they can chat about it with they "friends" online. Again, they are communicating with real people, yet they are not in a social setting. One can edit what they type, but they can't edit what they say in the real world. This online social world is a fake one, where people show the world what they want them to see, not what is actually real. This creates people isolated from the real world online at all hours of the day and the foundation of community life has surely suffered as a result.
In sum, technology has opened up new channels of communication and this is very apparent. However, with these new forms of communication the human race is actually communicating less in a real social atmosphere which causes people to be isolated individuals.
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument stated sounds reasonable on the onset, however at closer look one realizes that the author has made serious flaws presenting his argument. This is because the argument is based on unsound premises and assumptions.
The author argues that the politicians statement that the nation is on a brink of an energy crisis is misguided. He assumes many things in his argument which makes it weak and unbelievable. Primarily, when he states that "the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out" he assumes that oil companies can actually extract the oil. Oil extraction is a very complicated business and one cannot assume that just because the oil is there it can be consumed. What if the oil is so deep that current technology is unable to obtain it. Obviously, the government or oil companies would need to invest in new technology to get the oil to the surface. Secondly, the author assumes that oil demand will not increase dramatically. The author states that "we have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage". However, he leaves out the demand side of the equation. Other sources of energy might get cut off, thus increasing the demand for an alternative, mainly oil. The author's argument rests on assumptions which he does not clearly address, thus rendering his argument invalid.
In the same way, the author's argument is based on ill-founded premises. Firstly, he states that "we have enough oil", but he doesn't define what enough is. Statistics are always full of error. Does his assessment of enough include a large margin of error? If not, maybe the country would not have enough oil. The word enough is very ambiguous and his usages makes his argument weak. Secondly, he states that " in-ground oil is in no danger or running out any time soon". How soon is anytime soon? Does soon here mean tomorrow? If so, sure maybe the nation can supply itself for a day, but then what? If soon is only a day then obviously the politicians are correct in there assessment that "we are on the brink of an energy crisis". Because the author's argument rests on premises which he doesn't define, his argument will pursued few people.
Although the argument is founded on flawed assumptions and premises it does not mean it is outright invalid. If the author truly cares about his case he must spend some time finding information and articulating his argument. For starters, he needs to show if in fact the in-ground oil can be extracted. For example, he needs to give his readers real date related to oil extraction. In addition, he needs to clearly define his premises that we are not running out of oil anytime soon. For instance, if he gives us a clear number of how soon is soon, his argument will be much stronger. If these things are done, he may be able to convince his readers.
In sum, the author's argument is flawed, yet it is not entirely off based. If he re-exams his assumptions and premises and gives clear details it would be much stronger. However, if kept the same his argument will surely fail in its goal.
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Issues
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Although the modern information age has opened up channels of communication that never before existed, it, paradoxically, has destroyed the foundation of community by isolating individuals in a technological world that involves little real human interaction."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
MY RESPONSE:
The modern information age has truly opened up new channels of communication that never before existed. People living on the other side of the world can rapidly send a video message to their loved ones back home. However, these new channels have, paradoxically, destroyed the foundation of community and social life by isolating individuals in a technological world.
Firstly, in the past people used to have planned social events which now are decreasing. Although some of these events still exist and perhaps are increasing online, the informal in-person ones have almost been eliminated. For example, before the age of the Internet and cell phones people actually had to plan what they would do for entertainment. Now, people just say that they'll email each other and discuss it later. However, no decisions are ever made and time is simply wasted. For instance, In the 1950's high school students would plan their Saturday afternoon at school on Friday. They would tell each other that they would meet at the ball park and play baseball. Now, however, they say they will make plans online or via cell phone later because they can with the advent of new communication channels. Yet, this makes it more difficult to play because they did not make solid plans. Plans which are not solidified are much easier to break. This is happening across all ages and classes and has caused in person social events to be decreasing and thus caused people to be isolated at home.
In the same way, people are starting to play less and less games in person. For instance, before people used to meet at the chess hall and play real chess with real people. Now, they can simply play with their computer. Yes, one might argue that they can play with real people via the Internet. This is indeed true. However, they are not having real social interaction. To makes matters worse, in the past, after they played chess perhaps they would go out to dinner and discuss a wide variety of topics. Now, once the game is over online, they return to their isolated world. The most important aspect of games is not the act of playing, but the act of interacting with other human beings. Because technology has made this so easy people have become lazy and prefer to stay in their houses. Now, actual human interaction has decreased.
Perhaps most importantly is the Facebook example. Facebook as made communication instant, and no one can deny this fact. However, there is a serious consequence happening. People do not have real friends in the way they used to. They have online friends or "Facebook friends". Now, instead of going out to the movies, playing sports, or shopping together. They can stay at home and do all of these things online. Then they can chat about it with they "friends" online. Again, they are communicating with real people, yet they are not in a social setting. One can edit what they type, but they can't edit what they say in the real world. This online social world is a fake one, where people show the world what they want them to see, not what is actually real. This creates people isolated from the real world online at all hours of the day and the foundation of community life has surely suffered as a result.
In sum, technology has opened up new channels of communication and this is very apparent. However, with these new forms of communication the human race is actually communicating less in a real social atmosphere which causes people to be isolated individuals.
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument stated sounds reasonable on the onset, however at closer look one realizes that the author has made serious flaws presenting his argument. This is because the argument is based on unsound premises and assumptions.
The author argues that the politicians statement that the nation is on a brink of an energy crisis is misguided. He assumes many things in his argument which makes it weak and unbelievable. Primarily, when he states that "the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out" he assumes that oil companies can actually extract the oil. Oil extraction is a very complicated business and one cannot assume that just because the oil is there it can be consumed. What if the oil is so deep that current technology is unable to obtain it. Obviously, the government or oil companies would need to invest in new technology to get the oil to the surface. Secondly, the author assumes that oil demand will not increase dramatically. The author states that "we have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage". However, he leaves out the demand side of the equation. Other sources of energy might get cut off, thus increasing the demand for an alternative, mainly oil. The author's argument rests on assumptions which he does not clearly address, thus rendering his argument invalid.
In the same way, the author's argument is based on ill-founded premises. Firstly, he states that "we have enough oil", but he doesn't define what enough is. Statistics are always full of error. Does his assessment of enough include a large margin of error? If not, maybe the country would not have enough oil. The word enough is very ambiguous and his usages makes his argument weak. Secondly, he states that " in-ground oil is in no danger or running out any time soon". How soon is anytime soon? Does soon here mean tomorrow? If so, sure maybe the nation can supply itself for a day, but then what? If soon is only a day then obviously the politicians are correct in there assessment that "we are on the brink of an energy crisis". Because the author's argument rests on premises which he doesn't define, his argument will pursued few people.
Although the argument is founded on flawed assumptions and premises it does not mean it is outright invalid. If the author truly cares about his case he must spend some time finding information and articulating his argument. For starters, he needs to show if in fact the in-ground oil can be extracted. For example, he needs to give his readers real date related to oil extraction. In addition, he needs to clearly define his premises that we are not running out of oil anytime soon. For instance, if he gives us a clear number of how soon is soon, his argument will be much stronger. If these things are done, he may be able to convince his readers.
In sum, the author's argument is flawed, yet it is not entirely off based. If he re-exams his assumptions and premises and gives clear details it would be much stronger. However, if kept the same his argument will surely fail in its goal.
