GRE Argument Analysis 4: "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..."

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.

Global warming is affecting the world climate various ways. However, the argument relating to the decreasing number of arctic deer and global warming is not convincing due to lack of proper evidences.

To begin with, the author takes into account the reports of some local hunters. Who stated the deer population is declining. It was not clear how the local hunters came into this conclusion. The methodology of their findings is not present either. The places, the time of year they have taken into account, even the number of hunters who said so, could not be verified from the argument. These lack of evidences leads to the dubiety of the local hunters report.

The argument goes further to relate that report with the rise of global warming. While it's true that the rise in temperature does melt ice in the arctic region, it did not present the evidences needed to establish a relation between this and the deer population decay. It merely assumed that the deer might not being able to follow their usual migratory patterns. However, a warmer environment might mean that some islands are not hostile anymore to the plants the beer lives on. Because according to the argument the islands need to be warm enough to sustain them. The deer might not even need to leave their island if their own one is being propitious. So, the lack of example with actual data, showing that the deer are now trapped in their islands and too warm to sustain the plants the beer lives on, further weakens the argument.

Hence, though it is important to research the effects of global warming, this particular argument did not present evidences necessary to conclude that the deer population is indeed declining due to the those effects. Even if there is any relation between them, it failed to establish so. The arguer should provide some concrete evidences to remove its doubtfulness and make it tenable.

GRE Argument Analysis 2: "Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically...."

"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The argument is jumbling up various events, assuming unsoundly about their reasons and making up a blunt claim. Several question can be asked from this particular argument. It could be shown that this argument fails to answer them, making it very unconvincing and its recommendation, untenable.

To begin with, the reduction in the number of shoppers can have several reasons. If someone tries to find the answer to the question of that reduction from this argument, he would fail. Because the author doesn't give any. May be another plaza has been established with more amenities, may be peoples financial condition has been worsened. If these are the case, then the juxtaposition of shopper diminution and skateboarding proliferation and thus the claimed entailment of their relation would gain dubious authenticity.

The argument stated that 'many plaza owners', believe that skateboarding is ruining their business. But how many? What percentage of owners are claiming that? If the percentage is not sufficiently large to represent the owners, then their believe would not have much value. The author needs to be able to give clear answer to that question, else it would attenuate the validity of his conclusion.

The dramatic rise in the amount of litter and vandalism, in the views of the author, is another reason for the decrease in business. The question here is, what are the reasons for the increment of vandalism and litter? It can be the case that the economic condition in that reason has worsened, or people are loosing respect to the law and order, leading to that increased vandalism. Then the authors assumption of the relation between increased vandalism and waning of business in Central Plaza. Which would lead to the weakening of authors recommendation.

If the city council really wants to boom business in Central Plaza, they should ask the questions described above themselves. Else, this ill-founded argument and its suspicious recommendation would not be propitious for Central Plaza business.

GRE Argument Analysis 3: "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty...."

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

While the authors friend might get more profit with Adams Realty, his argument to convince him so is based on unsound assumptions. Which are ill-founded and not convincing enough to prove Adams Realty's superiority.

To begin with, the author states that there are more employees in Adams's than Fitch. The assumption is, more employee means better company. Which is not necessarily true. If there is a small but well-trained, educated, professional, devoted workforce in Fitch, and a large but inefficient workforce in Adams then Fitch would be superior in terms of personnel. In this case, the assumption would be proved fallacious. Which would lead to weakening the conclusion.

Another information presented by the author is that the revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch. Which also included some sales with higher average than Fitch. The author implies that if a company is making more money than another, it's profitable for someone to do business with first one. However, it could simply be false. Because, may be Adams are just taking the larger share of the home sale rather than giving more to the homeowner. Fitch could be doing that, which would make it more profitable to work with than Adams though there are income discrepancy between them weakening the authors recommendation.

Now about the higher average cost, it didn't specify what types of houses were sold at those prices. House type, location are important factors in determining its price. If the authors friends house matches with the sort Fitch deals with and not with Adams, then the authors conclusion would weaken further.

Lastly, the author shares his personal experience of house selling. One he did ten years ago with Fitch and one with Adams last year. The author assumes that the house market remained just the same and the business of both companies remained unchanged for the last 10 years timeline. Which is not backed up by any data and easily leads to ill-founded conclusion. Many things can change in ten years. May be there are more people living in their town, business have changed, people needs changed. All of it would affect the time takes to sell a house. Also, the author fails to specify the type of house he sold. If they are of different sorts, then it would be imprudent to compare. Additionally attenuating the conclusions validity.

Hence, it would be advisable to the authors friend that he should not decide to sell his house based on this particular argument. As it contains flawed assumptions, leading to a dubious conclusion. He should ask the author to further clarify those assumptions if he wants to make a better profit from those companies by selling his house.

GRE Argument Analysis 1: "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clue.... "

"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."
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.

The argument, relating birth order on an individuals stimulation level is both vague and rife with loopholes. There are several immature explanations trying to relate them. However, alternative explanations can be established because of the absence of strong and specific evidence.

For example the size of dataset, eighteen, can well be an outlier set. They may not represent the entire rhesus monkey population. Mere fifty another rhesus monkeys can be easily collected and study the same behaviors, which may produce very different results. 

In the argument, it is not clear that those monkeys was gathered from one forest or from around the world. If another group of researchers takes a larger sample set, collected from different types of rhesus monkeys around the world, then their claim, whatever that might be,  would have more validity than this group of researchers.

It is also stated in the argument that the firstborn produced more cortisol than others in a stimulating condition. However, it failed to specify that both groups were tested using the same stimulant or not. Exposing both groups to different stimulant may produce findings that would not be agreeing with that finding.

Another flaw in that comparing sentence is the measure of cortisol between the two groups. It's stated to be 'up to twice', not specifying how many firstborn produced more, how many produced less or how many produced equal. If there is a large portion of firstborns who produce less cortisol, then the findings may well fall apart.

Then there is the example of human firstborns, which is just dropped in abruptly. There is no reference of the study on human firstborns. What was the dataset, their relative age, what was considered to be a stimulating condition, is not specified, weakening the argument. If the stimulant was changed, for example, they were exposed to a frightful condition, their findings could vary.

The argument goes on to state that during pregnancy, first time mother monkeys produce higher level of cortisol. Pregnancy is a very complex stage, and there are numerous factors that could be taken into account while describing that individuals health condition. A healthier monkey, may produce more cortisol even if it already has offspring, than a first-time mother monkey with poor health condition. The argument did not specify these conditions.

If there is a relation between birth order and level of activities in rhesus monkeys, the statement fails to convincingly establish it. Due to so much inadequate specification and much vagueness, the argument lets itself to be refuted by alternative explanations. The researchers should consider the alternative explanations described above to make more sound arguments.

GRE Issue Analysis 5: "Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition"

A country's advancement can be measured by the percentage of educated people and their quality of education. Towards building a prosperous nation, the importance of education can not be stretched enough. So the recommendation on free university education is both tenable and necessary to implement.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or ICESCR, is an International body which defines human rights on various fields. They have accepted education as a human right just like the right to have a social life. It is in the interest of the nation, hence of the government that it's population gets high quality education. Cost of education hindering that students progress is undesirable and marks that nations backwardness while all the developed nations trying to make education more accessible to their mass.

Brazil, Argentina, Denmark, Norway, Scotland, Trukey and Germany for example, has made education free even in the university level. Capitalist countries like USA and UK also supports higher study students financially in different ways. It's not a wonder why they fall into the category of first world nations.

It is arguable that the government spending on higher education can pull fund from other fields such as food or health, which are more important. However, it is through building a knowledge based developed nation, the government can fight the obstacles of those fields. The spending can not be said to be extraneous.

A student passes more or less 12 years before being admitted into a college. It can be inferred that he is both interested and capable to pursue his higher studies. Financial hindrance obstructing his progress is not propitious for the nation. So, the claim of free education for students with financial difficulties is strongly supportable, as it does not conflict with national interests, rather helps the advancement of a nation and helps the student excel at his personal level. 

GRE Issue Analysis 6: "Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student’s field of study"

Knowledge, as we know it, it much more diversified than it was at it's nascent stage. Each person has different interests and it's true for academic fields too. It is desirable that a person would study and specialize as many fields of science, arts or commerce as possible. However, that is not feasible. While a person may have multiple fields he finds appealing, one should not be forced to study a variety of subjects. So the recommendation that, students should be 'required' to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study is not tenable.

The primary purpose of a university is to create and spread knowledge. To create knowledge in a field one must dive really deep and specialize. If he was forced to study unrelated subjects, his primary goal would remain yet to achieve. For example, if someone is studying medical science, researching to find a cure of cancer, he should not be pushed towards  complex algorithms of computer science or intricacies through which a political leader runs his country.

The job sector might be unfriendly to those graduates, who knows a little about many fields without a working knowledge on any. To serve a specific function in a job, one needs to have some degree of specialization and efficiency, which can be achieved by focusing on a particular field of study.

Though examples exist, which show that an unrelated subject can help in ways one can not even think of. For example, being a man of computers, Steve Jobs took calligraphy courses just because he liked it. He didn't think it would be advantageous for his software. However, it did help him a lot when he was designing fonts for his personal computers. But the difference here is, he liked Calligraphy.

So, the stern tone of forcing students to take unrelated courses is disagreeable. Rather, university should just keep the option open to take disparate courses. So that students can enjoy their enjoy studying a subject, let it be their primary focus or just for their fondness to it. Forcing them would just hinder their path of progress. 

GRE Issue Analysis 3: "Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed."

The definition of success varies from person to person. It can be changed viewing from a different perspective. Education is what makes a person fit to live and serve a greater cause in modern societies. It plays the most important role in shaping and sustaining human civilization. So, how a student is going to be educated is as important as any other aspects of a society. The given statement is a little complex. In the sense that, educational institutions should not actually deter students from the fields they want to study, even if they are likely to fail. Institutions should just create the appropriate environment in which students can find their forte of their own by the help of his mentors. That is indirectly dissuading too, but in a good way. So that the fine line between directly dissuading and indirectly dissuading is very important to recognize and maintain.

Every person has some inherent qualities. Some of them remains dormant, some of them expresses themselves in the appropriate milieu. At the start of their academic life, a student doesn't know what they are good at or what their goal is. At those initial stages, a single course plan is applicable for all the students. Eventually, they would be doing well in some fields and would hate some. Educational system must recognize these choices and change the course plan accordingly for those students.

In some countries, like Russia, even the very existence of 'Chess School' shows the adaptive nature of their education. Students who are not interested in conventional studies and tends to pursue a sporting career do get institutional support from the state. It is not a wonder why so many chess grand masters are of Russian origin.

The case when the institution is directly hindering the students desired path, deeming that he would fail is unacceptable, even borders to a vacuousness claiming that it should be a responsibility to prevent students from pursuing their dream.

It could be argued that, teachers know more than students and could direct them to a better path than the students thought for themselves. However, it is from mistakes, that people learn. Its better to know one possible and nine impossible way to do something rather than just knowing one certain way.

I would strongly posit that educational institutes should no way hinder, deter or dissuade a students pursuit. Rather it should actively engage in creating the appropriate surroundings where students would prosper by finding his own bent.  

GRE Issue Analysis 1: "“As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious."

It was the drive to know the unknown, it was the passion of a few people to not taking things for granted, that created the knowledge base human race now possesses. The understanding of the universe is yet incomplete, but we do have a better grasp than before on it. So, claiming that things are much more esoteric and enigmatic would not be correct.

When the human race was young, just started to use the nature better on their advantage, did not have any explanation of the natural phenomena. The mere rise and set of sun and moon was mysterious for them. They tried to explain it, and the movements of other planetary objects. Geocentric model was proposed, the mystery was solved partially. Then came the Haliocentric model, which could explain those movements flawlessly. That enigma was over.

There was a time when people did not know how thunderstorm happens, why and what is it made of. It was mysterious. Now we know why this happens and how.

What consists matter? Different theories attempted to explain that too. When this question first appeared in human mind, they were not equipped with necessary domain knowledge and technology that was necessary to grasp it. Later people did explain it, they now know about electrons, protons, neutrons and diving deeper, quarks.

One could argue that those solutions only begot more questions. Yes, but things did not got more complex and mysterious, as the issue claims. Because people were much more ready and equipped with existing knowledge to face them. The ratio of complexity and mystery to existing knowledge never got out of human control.

The pace of science is getting faster and staider everyday, enriching the human knowledge base in an unprecedented rate. Those who posit that pessimistic view of things getting worse should think again. As science is converting miracles into mere events. 

GRE Issue Analysis 4: "Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."

Scandals are incidents which abruptly draws public attention over some surreptitious activities. Many such activities, while deserving attention and reform go unnoticed unless someone or somehow exposes them. While the world is craving for transparency and accountability, these activities should not go overlooked. Scandals do this in a very useful way, where general population are forced to stare and do something that is necessary to stop those activities.

Among many forms of clandestine activities, political ones are particularly harmful for general population. A democratic government by all means should be fair, honest and accountable. It should maintain a friendly environment for the opposing opinions. If it spies on the opposing party, it hampers the true nature of a democratic government. As Watergate Scandal of Nixon administration shows, those subversive activities had to come to public attention. Which lead to major public awareness on government transparency.

When the government itself spies on people, it's both absolutely necessary and very hard to detect. Edward Snowden did what any person with a least touch of conscience should have done. He exposed the massive data collection program on US citizens which fomented events of paramount importance. People there are much more aware about their freedom and right of privacy.

Though these scandals were by all means beneficial for people, a reformer or speaker should never intrude in anyone's personal life. Like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair, it was absolutely their personal matter. Their extra-marital affair should not be thought of as sort of scandal people should go out and look for.

With that limitation of not intruding in personal affair which doesn't affect the society or a group of people, scandals does have a stunning effect on public conscience. Speaker and reformers can, with great effort labor turns or directs public attention or awareness towards the issues deserves attention, scandal does the same with little effort, proving its usefulness.  

GRE Issue Analysis 2: "To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities."

Since the dawn of human civilization, people have been grouping together to live by helping each other. They have formed groups of different sizes. We can call an arbitrary part of it a society, where their history, culture, custom, values are mostly similar with some differences. The city population of that society, in contrast to their rural counterparts, live a distinguishable life in many aspects and can show a great deal about that particular society. 

The most important characteristics of a society can be though of as a set of number of aspects. Such as, academic, economical, political and cultural. We can understand a great deal about that society by studying these. 

One of the most important factors of a society's progress is education. It can be seen in today's world that the first world countries, who are called highly developed, have very high qualities universities, research institutes and a high government budget for education. These varsities and institutes are generally located at the city areas. 

Economics determines the financial condition of a society. Whether they export or import, their amount, diversity of production, both agricultural and industrial. The economic think tanks lives in cities and directs how it should be further developed or what steps must be taken. In Bangladesh, the export processing zones, numerous garments, food processing industries are located either inside Dhaka, or in it's suburbs. 

If we look at Paris, how much effect a city has on it's culture would be clear. The overall view of France as other nations envisage, is what Paris is. It's high literature, festivals marks as that of the whole France. Just as Rio De Jeniro of Brazil does. 

 

The overall governance of a society is done from a city. When we look at the capitals of any country, it is observable that, the capital is actually a city. Not a village. Like Washington D.C., London, Paris, Rome and actually all others.

Though arguments do exist opposing this city-centric view. When a society is  mostly agrarian, villages might show some aspects of their social life. But studying only that village would not give a comprehensive view of the major characteristics of that society.

The formation of cities was by the trend of time. After fulfilling the basic needs, people advanced. In many was including the ones described above. Their effort, success, failure all could be found in cities. So its not a overstretch that major cities must be studied to understand a society, rather a rational and tenable one.