GMAT Essays (AWA)

These were both written in 30 min without spell check, using random prompts from the GRE website. I have recognized the spelling mistakes, but an overall critique of content and grammar would be very helpful. Thank you to the people of the internet. I'm taking the GRE on 10/24/14. If you could also include a grade out of 6 that would be great.



Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

Art has always been a creation of the general public. When it comes to art the rich man has no more right than the poor man. All is equal and all is fair. We have remained without political intervention in the art world for thousands of years so it is strange to believe we need it now. The government funding of arts is a risky and unneccessary move that could potentially manipulate and corrupt the art world.

The idea of the government funding art opposes just about everything that art is supposed to represent. Unfortunetly, in recent decades art has been commercialized, it has been raped by media and politics, and it has had its soul removed with industrial precision. This is not always the case, but when we see advertisments using the artistic style of Andy Warhol or politicians graciously embracing the idea of artistic expression as a means of furthering their own agena, it is hard to believe that government funding of art wouldn't risk threatening arts integritiy. Art is creation free from the realms of the mundane world and when we risk mixing business with pleasure there's the chance that the cocktail we create will be just as hallow, fake, and plastic as a member of congress's shark toothed smile.

Art has been a part of human existence since we first developed consciousness and to believe that it will disappear without government funding is ludacris. Since the days of cave drawings we have had paintings and since the creation of the written word we have had poetry. Art is not a rare being that must be coaxed out of hiding with tax dollars. It is anywhere and everywhere. It is all around us and within us. We the people make it and we define it, but if a select few are given the power to distribute currency in the name of art we will soon find that the direction art is taken vastly differs from what should be an equal enterprise for all.

There are some who may believe that with how large our world has grown that art will not flourish or that art won't be available without goverment funding, but in our technological world I believe the exact opposite is the case. Today nearly infinite amounts of data are being traded over the internet everyday. Pictures, videos, and written word are all traded on a global market that can be run by the general public. There is no need for governments to ensure the creation or spread of art, because the people have the ability to share anything at any time to anywhere in the world.

I think we underestimate our ability as people if we believe we need the goverment to help us in our artistic endevors. Art is a responsibility of the people and in the peoples hands it should remain, as it always has, until the day our species goes extinct.





Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The argument states that the decline in deer population is the result of global warming causing the deer to be unable to travel their age-old migration patterns, but the argument is flawed with numerous logical fallicies.

The arguement paragraph comes to the conclusion that because global warming trends coincide with the reports of the declining deer population that global warming is the causal factor. In academia, it is repeated over and over that correlation does not mean causation and this argument is a perfect example of that fallacy. There is no evidence to suggest that the deer population would remain consistent if it weren't for global warming. If the argument provided historical reports of a consistent deer population with all other variables remaining constant then we could start to move in the direction of causation, but currently there is no reason to believe that hypothesis.

The deer are not always moving from island to island, in fact for a good part of the year they endure immobility due to the rising water temperatures, so it is strange to assume that a lack of mobility during the winter is the cause of their declining population. The arguement does not address why a lack of mobility in the winter is causing the deer to die, while their lack of mobility in the warmer months is a normal and conssitent occurence that is not life threatening. The arguement could provide evidence showing that to survive, the deer need to be mobile during the winter, but that during the summer the need to be mobile is less of a necessity.

Another issue with the argument is that the declining deer population was reported by hunters and no thought is given to the possibility that the hunters could have inaccurate reports and may even be personally responsible for the delining population. Over hunting could very well be responsible for the decline in deer population. Also, hunters may be reporting declining deer populations because deer may be scarce in hunting regions. The argument would be better supported if the population decline was reported by wildlife professionals and if they gave evidence to show that hunting is not responsible for the decline in the deer population.

This arguement is quick to assume that there is, in fact, a decline in the deer population and that global warming is directly responsible for that decline, but it disregards numerous factors that could potentially render the arguement invalid.