GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Please review my essay. My first AWA attempt.
[#permalink]
25 Jun 2019, 07:16
25 Jun 2019, 07:16
The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The issue at hand tries to solve environmental problems created by wastes from consumers by imposing strict rules on the amount of waste that a household can dump. Given such laws can limit the quantity of waste being generated it is the best way to fight increasing environmental connundrums.
This plan, although curbs the quantity of waste being generated, does not check the quality of waste. The biggest threat to environment is plastic and large amounts of this non-recyclable material is being dumped every day. For instance, Delhi, the capital of India, has been reported to have discarded 1.7 million plastic bottles. People can control the amount of waste being thrown away, but can keep using plastic bottles and cause the same, if not more, harm to the environment. Although the plan at hand does not restrict the materials that can be accepted, imposing a limit on the amount of trash will force the residents to use permanent utensils like a ceramic mug instead of a plastic bottle or a small purse or a bag replacing small plastic pouches.
Restricting the quantity of wastes being accepted by the municipality will make residents of a town or city think wisely about their habits that leads to creation of wastes start curbing excess waste which will in turn limit environmental pressure to some extent. For example, supermarkets throwing away fruits and vegetables that perish will now have to think about limiting their stocks to reasonable amounts. Knowing that there are millions of starving people in this world, instead of throwing away excess food, people can donate their excess to various charitable organisations or homeless people. For instance, in a province in Canada around 1000 kids face diseases because of malnutrition, while 1300 kilograms of food is wasted every month. The government came up with a plan to fine supermarkets that threw excess food while reward them if they donated to charity. The plan reduced wastage by almost 61% as reported last year. Therefore, such limits work in favour of saving the environment.
In conclusion, a method like imposing strict limits on the amount of waste that every household can throw away is agreeably the best way to solve environmental pressure. Such laws increases awareness about the environment and create a sense of responsibility among the people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The issue at hand tries to solve environmental problems created by wastes from consumers by imposing strict rules on the amount of waste that a household can dump. Given such laws can limit the quantity of waste being generated it is the best way to fight increasing environmental connundrums.
This plan, although curbs the quantity of waste being generated, does not check the quality of waste. The biggest threat to environment is plastic and large amounts of this non-recyclable material is being dumped every day. For instance, Delhi, the capital of India, has been reported to have discarded 1.7 million plastic bottles. People can control the amount of waste being thrown away, but can keep using plastic bottles and cause the same, if not more, harm to the environment. Although the plan at hand does not restrict the materials that can be accepted, imposing a limit on the amount of trash will force the residents to use permanent utensils like a ceramic mug instead of a plastic bottle or a small purse or a bag replacing small plastic pouches.
Restricting the quantity of wastes being accepted by the municipality will make residents of a town or city think wisely about their habits that leads to creation of wastes start curbing excess waste which will in turn limit environmental pressure to some extent. For example, supermarkets throwing away fruits and vegetables that perish will now have to think about limiting their stocks to reasonable amounts. Knowing that there are millions of starving people in this world, instead of throwing away excess food, people can donate their excess to various charitable organisations or homeless people. For instance, in a province in Canada around 1000 kids face diseases because of malnutrition, while 1300 kilograms of food is wasted every month. The government came up with a plan to fine supermarkets that threw excess food while reward them if they donated to charity. The plan reduced wastage by almost 61% as reported last year. Therefore, such limits work in favour of saving the environment.
In conclusion, a method like imposing strict limits on the amount of waste that every household can throw away is agreeably the best way to solve environmental pressure. Such laws increases awareness about the environment and create a sense of responsibility among the people.
GRE Prep Club Tests Editor
Joined: 13 May 2019
Affiliations: Partner at MyGuru LLC.
Posts: 186
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GRE 1: Q169 V168
WE:Education (Education)
Re: Please review my essay. My first AWA attempt.
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2019, 07:25
27 Jun 2019, 07:25
Expert Reply
gamerboi wrote:
The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The issue at hand tries to solve environmental problems created by wastes from consumers by imposing strict rules on the amount of waste that a household can dump. Given such laws can limit the quantity of waste being generated it is the best way to fight increasing environmental connundrums.
This plan, although curbs the quantity of waste being generated, does not check the quality of waste. The biggest threat to environment is plastic and large amounts of this non-recyclable material is being dumped every day. For instance, Delhi, the capital of India, has been reported to have discarded 1.7 million plastic bottles. People can control the amount of waste being thrown away, but can keep using plastic bottles and cause the same, if not more, harm to the environment. Although the plan at hand does not restrict the materials that can be accepted, imposing a limit on the amount of trash will force the residents to use permanent utensils like a ceramic mug instead of a plastic bottle or a small purse or a bag replacing small plastic pouches.
Restricting the quantity of wastes being accepted by the municipality will make residents of a town or city think wisely about their habits that leads to creation of wastes start curbing excess waste which will in turn limit environmental pressure to some extent. For example, supermarkets throwing away fruits and vegetables that perish will now have to think about limiting their stocks to reasonable amounts. Knowing that there are millions of starving people in this world, instead of throwing away excess food, people can donate their excess to various charitable organisations or homeless people. For instance, in a province in Canada around 1000 kids face diseases because of malnutrition, while 1300 kilograms of food is wasted every month. The government came up with a plan to fine supermarkets that threw excess food while reward them if they donated to charity. The plan reduced wastage by almost 61% as reported last year. Therefore, such limits work in favour of saving the environment.
In conclusion, a method like imposing strict limits on the amount of waste that every household can throw away is agreeably the best way to solve environmental pressure. Such laws increases awareness about the environment and create a sense of responsibility among the people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The issue at hand tries to solve environmental problems created by wastes from consumers by imposing strict rules on the amount of waste that a household can dump. Given such laws can limit the quantity of waste being generated it is the best way to fight increasing environmental connundrums.
This plan, although curbs the quantity of waste being generated, does not check the quality of waste. The biggest threat to environment is plastic and large amounts of this non-recyclable material is being dumped every day. For instance, Delhi, the capital of India, has been reported to have discarded 1.7 million plastic bottles. People can control the amount of waste being thrown away, but can keep using plastic bottles and cause the same, if not more, harm to the environment. Although the plan at hand does not restrict the materials that can be accepted, imposing a limit on the amount of trash will force the residents to use permanent utensils like a ceramic mug instead of a plastic bottle or a small purse or a bag replacing small plastic pouches.
Restricting the quantity of wastes being accepted by the municipality will make residents of a town or city think wisely about their habits that leads to creation of wastes start curbing excess waste which will in turn limit environmental pressure to some extent. For example, supermarkets throwing away fruits and vegetables that perish will now have to think about limiting their stocks to reasonable amounts. Knowing that there are millions of starving people in this world, instead of throwing away excess food, people can donate their excess to various charitable organisations or homeless people. For instance, in a province in Canada around 1000 kids face diseases because of malnutrition, while 1300 kilograms of food is wasted every month. The government came up with a plan to fine supermarkets that threw excess food while reward them if they donated to charity. The plan reduced wastage by almost 61% as reported last year. Therefore, such limits work in favour of saving the environment.
In conclusion, a method like imposing strict limits on the amount of waste that every household can throw away is agreeably the best way to solve environmental pressure. Such laws increases awareness about the environment and create a sense of responsibility among the people.
Hello. So, I graded this as a 3, but I will caveat by saying that my graduate degree in journalism, usually results in me scoring more strictly than the official GRE. That said there are some issues that I think are keeping you from reaching the usual goal score of a 4.
First, restrict your essay to the explicit terms of the prompt: in this case that the best way to solve the problems caused by household waste is to limit the amount accepted by municipalities. In your introduction you expand this rubric to "environmental conundrums", which is not the issue. Be careful not to expand or change the scope of the topic.
You do include very solid real life supporting examples, which probably ensure that you would not score less than a 3 on this essay. Kudos for that! However, you probably go too far in stating absolutes that are not supported. For instance, does a limit on trash really "force" people to use utensils? Probably not. Be careful not to make too extreme assumptions and conclusions of your own in supporting your position. It leave you open to criticism.
Also, do always at least briefly address the opposition position. In this case that the limits are not the best way. This is really the primary way to ensure a 4. Illustrate mastery of the issue at such a level that the grader might believe you could argue both positions! You still need to say your position is better, but at least recognize that the opposing viewpoint has merits.
I hope this helps, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist in your GRE AWA prep!
