Get Rid of Books! GRE Argument Analysis

15 May

I’m editing this post as a result of a pretty scary notice saying this was a violation of somebody somewhere’s copyright.  Which I guess since they care, must mean I did a pretty good job of writing on the topic–thanks for the complement.  I worked really hard, without any class, tutor, or expensive program of any kind to master the GRE.  Besides, I think it’s funny to copyright anything you post on the huge internet where everyone has access to it.  Which is available to everybody.  But, so as not to get my whole WordPress taken away, I’ll make it more generic:

(1 Question — 30 Minutes)

The following appeared in a recent record by an unnamed planning body:

    “Blah, blah we think getting rid of a public book-holding unit is a good idea in such and such county.  This is due to short funds–as everything is in this economy.  We think instead of a bunch of locations, we can scale down to the one, and people can use internet for the rest.  This should be cool since there are enough books per person here AND people in nearby locations (who are losing their locations) have not spoken up.”  Or something to that effect.  You get the gist.

12:33 PM-12:37 PM read & noted points

12:58-finished points

12:54 intro & conclusion

1:02 edited

better to write the author concludes _____ because ________ format.  Let reader know what I’m talking about without reading argument passage!  

This paragraph proposes closing a one book-holding center in some location to make a technology center.  The writer assumes many things in order to try to convince the reader that this is a good idea.  Thus, there are many reasons this article is not very logical.

Go back at very end and explicitly state the reasons I sited in each subsequent paragraph.

First of all, this statement assumes such and such location is like the rest of the country in turning to the internet for research.  It is possible the population of such and such location is not representative of the rest of the area/country.  The residents might not have an interest in technology, nor have the proper equipment or wiring to accomodate completely switching from books to the computer, they may be more advanced in age and therefore more hesitant to go to the internet over a book.  They might even rail against getting rid of books.  To show a need for the internet, the person that wrote this argument needs to present a survey of such and such location Residents who would rather use technology than the book-holding center to conduct research.  An actual increase in internet use does not translate to an automatic decrease in the need for books.

Secondly, the article jumps to the conclusion that such and such location will have a growing need for computer training.  Even if there is a true desire on the part of such and such location residents to use the internet over the library, they may not have any interest to take part in computer training.  The residents might already be computer savvy and have no need for formal training.  They could be too busy to make computer training a priority as well.  To display a true need for computer training, the writer of the passage should include a survey of such and such location residents who want to increase their computer knowledge.

The third weak point in this passage is the thought that the county book holding center contains more volumes of books per resident than any other book-holding center in the state, so it must fill the entire needs of all residents.  The article does not specify if the volumes of books cover catholic topics–they could cover a very narrow segment of subjects.  Also, the other book holding centers in the area could be almost as large, and share books between branches to meet the needs of every resident.  In that case, the one book-holding center would not fill the needs of such and such location.  To prove that the volumes contained in one location would truly fill the needs of such and such location residents, the passage could include a sample list of subjects covered in the book-holding center, or an exact number of books contained in that one branch of the book holding center.  Argument overlooks population growth in such and such location.

The final criticism of the passage is that the author assumes the residents are certain to support closing the book-holding center because residents in a nearby county did not object to closing all but one location of the book-holding center.  This result cannot be extrapolated from one location to another.  Also, the other location may have only supported such a proposition, because they knew the book-holding center in nearby such and such location would fulfill all their research needs.  Lastly, we are not told how the residents of the nearby location decided to close all but one book-holding center.  We have no idea if it was accepted at a clandestine town council meeting with hardly any atendees, or if the proposal was attached to another more desirable law change.  This is not a very relevant fact to include in the argument.

In order to be more convincing, the author of this paragraph needs to include more facts in the argument to close a branch of the such and such location book-holding center.  If the author has any hope of successfully convincing such and such location to adopt a computer training center over using the book-holding center, then facts about the true desire of the residents should be presented.

Provide summary of all paragraphs.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: