I have been studying for the Test since March. In my first attempt, I did not need to do the AWA. For the second round, I do however. I have no idea where I stand on the AWA part. So, any EXPERT RATING and suggestion/recommendation is appreciated.
Analysis of an Issue
"Some people claim that space exploration should not be funded by the government, arguing that it is too costly and provides little benefit for most the population. Others disagree, claiming that fundamental scientific knowledge is valuable in and of itself, and that, additionally, knowledge gained through space exploration is often later used by industry and research scientists for purposes not foreseen by those who planned the exploration."
Which do you find more convincing, the argument that space exploration should not be funded by the government, or the response to it? Explain your point of view using relevant examples, based on your experience, observations or readings.
The issue on hand is as controversial as it is complex. The author weighs reasons for and against space exploration. While most of the population take stand against governmental funding on grounds that the costs outweigh the benefits, others approve governmental funding for the sake of science and optimistically for industrial purposes, which are not known yet. In my point of view, the author's argument seems reasonable for both sides, but somehow fails to convey details.
Although both sides are reasonable, I rather comply with most people, stating that the costs outweigh the benefits of space exploration. Those people seem to be right in considering governmental funding of space exploration rather financially disadvantageous. Especially when political and economical issues seem to be in greater need of funding. Such instances might be overcoming possible economic crisis whereby companies could be financially supported, fostering education in a given country, supporting people in regard of health care, or facilitating citizens in getting integrated back into the job market.
Another reason against space exploration is its subtle approval of human kind being wasteful in regard of energy. While resources on Earth get scarce rapidly, industries constantly search for alternatives or further exploitation of crude oil. Since everybody is aware of the scarcity, space exploration seems justifiable on grounds of finding other energy locations or even alternative energy supply. While this seems financially justifiable, those unknown sources may become scarce at a certain point as well, whereby the human kind will face similar issues again. Furthermore, space exploration entails a wasteful manner with resources and encourages the human kind to live beyond its means.
Although the argument of the author seems reasonable for both sides, I think that the downsides outweigh the benefits of funding space exploration. While space exploration might be economically advantageous, the psychological magnitude is not preferable. Moreover, such economic success is uncertain. Available funding should be used for actually present and profound economic and social issues.
Analysis of an Argument:
"It has become almost impossible to eat a balanced, healthy diet. Television news programs are constantly providing new, sometimes contradictory information about what is healthy and what is not. The average consumer cannot make informed decisions from this kind of scanty information and is generally overwhelmed upon entering increasingly larger supermarkets with more and more brands to choose from."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In explaining your point of view, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Also discuss what if anything, would make this argument more sound and persuasive, or would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument is not convincing, since the author makes unstated assumptions, which are prone to any argumentative attack. He concludes that consumers are overwhelmed by the vast amounts of brands to choose from. The author bases his conclusion on the premises that a balanced, healthy diet is impossible and that TV provides contradictory information on healthy and unhealthy food. The premises do not support the conclusion, since the author made assumptions that he did not address. That is why, the argument is invalid and overt to any attack.
The author's first premise, which is the first sentence, states that it is impossible to eat a balanced, healthy diet. Thereby, he presumes that no healthy food is available. This is not true, since supermarkets offer healthy as well unhealthy or less nutritious food.
The second premise states that TV news programs provide contradictory information about what is healthy or not. The author assumes that TV is the only source of information for healthy and unhealthy food. The author does not consider other sources, such as periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, that may be dedicated to such issues.
By stating that consumers are overwhelmed by the vast amount of brands, he neglects that consumers made no experience with food and its effects on the body, like gaining or losing weight from certain kinds of food or feeling healthier when consuming certain food.
The validity of his conclusion does not exist. From the above two weak premises, the author concludes that average consumers are overwhelmed by the variety of brands to choose from. This conclusion is not justifiable since the three assumptions - no healthy food available, TV is the only source of information, and no personal experience with food - mentioned above are not addressed in the premises. This leads to a major gap in the argument.
However, the argument will be sound, if the author shows that there is no other source of information other than TV, that it is impossible to maintain a balanced, healthy diet, and that consumers are not able to judge whether certain food is healthy or not based on their own experience. Thereby the conclusion will gain its validity.
Thank you so much in advance!
Analysis of an Issue
"Some people claim that space exploration should not be funded by the government, arguing that it is too costly and provides little benefit for most the population. Others disagree, claiming that fundamental scientific knowledge is valuable in and of itself, and that, additionally, knowledge gained through space exploration is often later used by industry and research scientists for purposes not foreseen by those who planned the exploration."
Which do you find more convincing, the argument that space exploration should not be funded by the government, or the response to it? Explain your point of view using relevant examples, based on your experience, observations or readings.
The issue on hand is as controversial as it is complex. The author weighs reasons for and against space exploration. While most of the population take stand against governmental funding on grounds that the costs outweigh the benefits, others approve governmental funding for the sake of science and optimistically for industrial purposes, which are not known yet. In my point of view, the author's argument seems reasonable for both sides, but somehow fails to convey details.
Although both sides are reasonable, I rather comply with most people, stating that the costs outweigh the benefits of space exploration. Those people seem to be right in considering governmental funding of space exploration rather financially disadvantageous. Especially when political and economical issues seem to be in greater need of funding. Such instances might be overcoming possible economic crisis whereby companies could be financially supported, fostering education in a given country, supporting people in regard of health care, or facilitating citizens in getting integrated back into the job market.
Another reason against space exploration is its subtle approval of human kind being wasteful in regard of energy. While resources on Earth get scarce rapidly, industries constantly search for alternatives or further exploitation of crude oil. Since everybody is aware of the scarcity, space exploration seems justifiable on grounds of finding other energy locations or even alternative energy supply. While this seems financially justifiable, those unknown sources may become scarce at a certain point as well, whereby the human kind will face similar issues again. Furthermore, space exploration entails a wasteful manner with resources and encourages the human kind to live beyond its means.
Although the argument of the author seems reasonable for both sides, I think that the downsides outweigh the benefits of funding space exploration. While space exploration might be economically advantageous, the psychological magnitude is not preferable. Moreover, such economic success is uncertain. Available funding should be used for actually present and profound economic and social issues.
Analysis of an Argument:
"It has become almost impossible to eat a balanced, healthy diet. Television news programs are constantly providing new, sometimes contradictory information about what is healthy and what is not. The average consumer cannot make informed decisions from this kind of scanty information and is generally overwhelmed upon entering increasingly larger supermarkets with more and more brands to choose from."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In explaining your point of view, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Also discuss what if anything, would make this argument more sound and persuasive, or would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument is not convincing, since the author makes unstated assumptions, which are prone to any argumentative attack. He concludes that consumers are overwhelmed by the vast amounts of brands to choose from. The author bases his conclusion on the premises that a balanced, healthy diet is impossible and that TV provides contradictory information on healthy and unhealthy food. The premises do not support the conclusion, since the author made assumptions that he did not address. That is why, the argument is invalid and overt to any attack.
The author's first premise, which is the first sentence, states that it is impossible to eat a balanced, healthy diet. Thereby, he presumes that no healthy food is available. This is not true, since supermarkets offer healthy as well unhealthy or less nutritious food.
The second premise states that TV news programs provide contradictory information about what is healthy or not. The author assumes that TV is the only source of information for healthy and unhealthy food. The author does not consider other sources, such as periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, that may be dedicated to such issues.
By stating that consumers are overwhelmed by the vast amount of brands, he neglects that consumers made no experience with food and its effects on the body, like gaining or losing weight from certain kinds of food or feeling healthier when consuming certain food.
The validity of his conclusion does not exist. From the above two weak premises, the author concludes that average consumers are overwhelmed by the variety of brands to choose from. This conclusion is not justifiable since the three assumptions - no healthy food available, TV is the only source of information, and no personal experience with food - mentioned above are not addressed in the premises. This leads to a major gap in the argument.
However, the argument will be sound, if the author shows that there is no other source of information other than TV, that it is impossible to maintain a balanced, healthy diet, and that consumers are not able to judge whether certain food is healthy or not based on their own experience. Thereby the conclusion will gain its validity.
Thank you so much in advance!
