Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
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.
MY ESSAY:
The argument states that that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions over time. The author also tries to strengthen his claim by providing an example of a 40 year old woman who required stronger glasses after one year of wearing glasses prescribed by optometrist. However, the author does not provide any concrete evidence to prove that people opting for eye-strengthening programs would save more than those opting for corrective lenses.
First, the author provides an example to claim that people wearing eyeglasses require stronger prescription over the year. However, the argument does not provide details of activities that people engage into after wearing corrective glasses such as excessive televisions, reading under dim lights or activities in general that affect eyesight. The author does not mention the the type of corrective glasses that stronger prescriptions over time. For example, the bifocal glasses that are used by people over forty for reading does not usually require stronger prescriptions. The author does not consider the various type of corrective lenses and generalizes that people who wear glasses require stronger prescription.
Second, the author mentions that people who use eyeglass or contact lens report more problems. However, the author does not mention the type of problems people wearing eyeglass or contact lens usually face. Also, the author claims that people should consider investing in eye-strengthening programs. However, the author does not provide any evidence to prove the success of eye-strengthening programs that would help people more instead of corrective glasses. The author does not provide any explanation that eye-strengthening programs would help in improving vision for people requiring eyeglasses. Also, it does not take into account the eye-related problems that are hereditary and cannot be corrected by eye-strengthening programs.
Third, the author claims that investing in eye-strengthening programs would save them thousands of dollars as compared buying new glasses every two or three years. The argument, however, does not provide the initial investment required for the eye-strengthening programs. The author also does not consider the fact that eye-strengthening programs might actually prove to be more expensive for people who cannot afford them.
Thus, By the above reasoning, the argument is weak and incomplete. The author has left many loop holes that makes the conclusion very unconvincing. Had the author included sufficient evidence to prove the claim, the argument would have been strengthened.
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
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.
MY ESSAY:
The argument states that that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions over time. The author also tries to strengthen his claim by providing an example of a 40 year old woman who required stronger glasses after one year of wearing glasses prescribed by optometrist. However, the author does not provide any concrete evidence to prove that people opting for eye-strengthening programs would save more than those opting for corrective lenses.
First, the author provides an example to claim that people wearing eyeglasses require stronger prescription over the year. However, the argument does not provide details of activities that people engage into after wearing corrective glasses such as excessive televisions, reading under dim lights or activities in general that affect eyesight. The author does not mention the the type of corrective glasses that stronger prescriptions over time. For example, the bifocal glasses that are used by people over forty for reading does not usually require stronger prescriptions. The author does not consider the various type of corrective lenses and generalizes that people who wear glasses require stronger prescription.
Second, the author mentions that people who use eyeglass or contact lens report more problems. However, the author does not mention the type of problems people wearing eyeglass or contact lens usually face. Also, the author claims that people should consider investing in eye-strengthening programs. However, the author does not provide any evidence to prove the success of eye-strengthening programs that would help people more instead of corrective glasses. The author does not provide any explanation that eye-strengthening programs would help in improving vision for people requiring eyeglasses. Also, it does not take into account the eye-related problems that are hereditary and cannot be corrected by eye-strengthening programs.
Third, the author claims that investing in eye-strengthening programs would save them thousands of dollars as compared buying new glasses every two or three years. The argument, however, does not provide the initial investment required for the eye-strengthening programs. The author also does not consider the fact that eye-strengthening programs might actually prove to be more expensive for people who cannot afford them.
Thus, By the above reasoning, the argument is weak and incomplete. The author has left many loop holes that makes the conclusion very unconvincing. Had the author included sufficient evidence to prove the claim, the argument would have been strengthened.
