GMAT Essays (AWA)

Argument Question:
Last summer saw a 500% increase in tourism at the seaside resort, and the national economic situation is even more favorable this year. This summer ' s tourist boom will surely generate record revenues which will resolve the area ' s economic difficulties.
Explain how logically persuasive you find the argument. In discussing your viewpoint, analyze the argument ' s line of reasoning and its use of evidence. Also explain what, if anything, would make the argument more valid and convincing or help you to better evaluate its conclusion.


Response
The author claims that there was a 500 per cent increase in tourism at the seaside area at the seaside area and the economic situation is better this year. Therefore, the author concludes that this summer tourist's boom make record revenues which will solve the area's economic difficulties. On the first sight this seems to be the obvious solution but on a closer look, the author's argument is not only flawed, but also unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the author states that the economic situation of the area is much better and potencially beneficial this year, than it was in previous. But the author has not provided any information or evidence of data about the area, where it is situated, why the people went to that resort last year, what was the purpose of their's stay. The author has not provided any information, whether some particular events took placelast year at the area. Therefore, this argument is weak.

Secondly, the author cites that the percentage of increase in income from the tourism sector of the resort. Moreover, the author has made a conclusion based on comparison of past revenues to that in future. Perhaps the revenue from that resort was just 5 dollars and indeed it had increased for 500 per cent comparing to that in the past. But 5 dollars is not enough to solve area's economic difficulties. The author has not provided any information on the actual last's year revenue. The author should provide more information to bolster his point. Clearly, this argument is flawed.

In conclusion, the author's argument is not pursuasive and convincing as it stands. If the author included the points mentioned above, he would have not only strenghtened and bolstered his argument but also would have made his argument more pusuasive and convincing.


Issue Question:
The following appeared in an article on the op-ed page of an urban newspaper.
Although the redevelopment proposal for the blighted inner-city neighborhood has prompted criticism from senior citizens, advocates of low and middle-income housing, and community residents fearful of inconvenience or even displacement, it promises to create not only a number of upscale apartment buildings but also numerous construction jobs as well.

Response
The issue of whether the redevelopment of the blighted inner-city has benefits or not is a controversial one. On the one hand, reconstructer of the city center is important for economic situation of the city. On the other hand those changes will hamper to keep the history of the place. However, in the final analysis of this issue I believe that a keeping the city center is essential in order to conserve the world's history for future generations.

The chief reason for my view is that in today's world development is impossible without history. For example, in the city center of Moscow a number of buildings were destroyed during the communism's period. A number of young people do not know the history of their city, they are not proud of their city and country. Without culture it most imposible to raise highly spiritual and educated person.

Another reason for my opinion is that old architecture could be of a great value for city income. For example, a lot of tourists come every year just to have a look on such buildings as palaces, gallareys and fontains in Florence and Vinece. The main revenue of those cities is tourism and therefore, to destroy masterpieces of 15-18 centuries means to ruin the economy of cities, which are listed above.

However, some people claim that there is not enough place in old cities for community residents and office buildings, but there is a plenty of space near the cities, a lot of free gaps among different parts of the town's areas. Even more, it is much more comfortably to live in a quiet place, like a supurb, than in over crowded and lowd inner-city.

In conclusion, I can concur that although it is not unfair to expect that everyone would support my opinion, I strongly believe that the growth of the city should be done but not in the city center. This could indeed provide a number of benefits for most of the old cities.