GRE Analytical Writing Sample Questions ii
Categories: GRE (The Graduate Records Examination)
Question.9. “Color photography has eliminated the need for realism in artistic painting, in the opinion of a number of art scholars and artists. At the same time, many members of the art community still feel that realistic artwork is still valuable and worthwhile.”
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
Question.10. “Claim: A person in authority should always encourage those under him or her to share their thoughts and ideas.
Reason: A leader’s main goal should be to promote innovation and change.”
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
Question.11. The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
Answer: The argument makes several unwarranted assumptions regarding the skateboard users being responsible for litter and vandalism, which hampers other visitors from coming to the Plaza. The ban imposed on skateboard users has shown no significant rise in the number of people visiting the Plaza. The recommendation to lift the ban provides a distorted view of the prevailing scenario. This is not supported by persuadable reasons and hence opens doors for some questions.
Firstly, the passage lacks proper statistics to hold skateboard users solely responsible for litter and vandalism. The writer should mention the number of incidents that occurred two years ago due to skateboard users and the number which currently persists. Also, the number and reason for the increase in visitors should be mentioned, as the answer behind this will help understand the impact of the ban.
Secondly, the marginal increase in footfall is probably due to two fundamental reasons. Either economic slowdown is prevailing in the country hence people have less disposable income, so they have to cut their shopping bills. Or another predominant reason can be better amenities at a reasonable price provided by stores in the vicinity. Also, the Plaza might not have enough capability to face rising competition from other stores.
Further, the writer asserts that Monroe Park is clean despite no provision of the ban on skateboard users. The argument is ineffectual as no clear line of similarity is drawn between the Park and Central Plaza. It might be the case that skateboard users in Park are more educated and hence are more likely to abide by the laws and rules or that the Park has better maintenance and cleaning facilities as compared to the Plaza. The argument would be more justified if it threw some light on the condition at both the places.
In conclusion, to assess the viability of the recommendation, the open-ended argument should be backed with some convincing information. It's necessary to assess all the possible reasons for the decrease in the number of visitors and solutions to restore the glory of Central Plaza.
Question.12. The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"Nosinia is an herb that many users report to be as effective as prescription medications at fighting allergy symptoms. Researchers recently compared Nosinia to a placebo in 95 men and women with seasonal allergies to ragweed pollen. Participants in the study reported that neither Nosinia nor the placebo offered significant relief. However, for the most severe allergy symptoms, the researchers reported that Nosinia was more effective than the placebo in providing relief. Furthermore, at the end of the study, participants given Nosinia were more likely than participants given a placebo to report feeling healthier. We, therefore, recommend using Nosinia to help with your severe allergy symptoms.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
Answer: The author concludes that ‘Nosinia’, which is an herb, is better than any ‘placebo’ for curing seasonal allergies to ragweed pollen. He arrives at this judgement through a study conducted on 95 men and women who have been infected with the said seasonal allergy. One section of the population was given ‘nosinia’ while the other was put up with placebos. In the initial days of the treatment, none of the medications gave a relief to the patients while later the ones infected with a severe form of this allergy found nosinia to be a soothing herb. Also, the patients who were administered Nosinia felt healthier than those who opted for placebos. Hence, the above derivation is achieved.
The argument seems flawless at first glance. But, as we read it over, there seem to be vague derivations that don’t strengthen the conclusion.
The author justifies his conclusion using a study that only dictates the strength of the population. There is no evidence regarding the age or general health of these people. Also, the author doesn’t state the stage of the disease at which the medication was provided to the patients. Such a plea that is incomplete cannot be a determinant of whether a medicine is recommendable or not. A patient’s medical history is a vital criterion to reach this conclusion. Before claiming the benefits of a drug, it is necessary to put forward the medical history of the people on whom the drug was tested; otherwise, it may not prove equally beneficial to every other person.
The next statement tells the readers that patients with severe allergy experienced relief after using Nosinia. Here the question that arises is whether there is any data regarding the number of patients suffering from a severe form of the allergy. There could have been only one person who was offered Nosinia, and he showed a slight sign of recovery. Such conditions cannot be regarded as a parameter to uphold the usage of the prescribed Nosinia. In such a scenario where precise detail is not given, the derivation becomes debatable. Also, it is arguable as to how the severity of allergy was measured. There should have been a scale, and the author should have clearly stated the symptoms that proved high intensity of the allergy. Only then can the people reading the excerpt relate to it and find the piece useful, otherwise, it becomes an article full of flaws.
The third argument given by the author states that people who took Nosinia felt healthier than those who took placebos. In a state where no medical past of the patient has been revealed or examined, the term healthy seems to be used vaguely. For example, all the people must have been primarily healthy with only a slight symptom of allergy by ragweed. In that case, the medicine prescribed to them gave relief, and they went back to their original state of health. However, the results may not be the same as people who had a severe form of allergy or some other ongoing medical issues.
The conclusion seemed to have been taken in a hurry as there are no reliable statements to prove its credibility. None with a degree of logical thinking go for any of the recommendations provided by the author. When making statements regarding a drug used to cure allergies that occur in both minor and severe forms, one must provide complete data regarding the research so that it helps those who are suffering from it or accumulating information regarding general illness and their respective treatments.