(from the GRE Pool of Argument Topics)
Quote:
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper.
"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend — the city-run public schools — comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools — even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
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.
The importance of education is undoubtable, and in order to promote that value the authorities should invest in schools for the sake of progress and preparing the children to
(for) real life. The author's argument tries to point at a gap between the ideal and reality, but fails to do so by assuming unproven facts without appropriately studying the many factors invloved
(involved) in it.
First, it is very plausible that the percentage in the population of people younger than 18 in Parson city is much higher than that of Blue city's. If so, Blue city does not need to invest as much money in public schools as Parson city, since it has fewer schools. Therefore, a more specific analysis of the demographics of each city is required in order to make such
(a) claim.
Furthermore, the argument starts by stating a fact about the Trillura region as a whole. Such
(an) inclusive statement fails to address the differences between each city. Even though Parson city's residents seem to invest twice as much money in public school funding than Blue city's, without further evidence the author's argument collapses. For instance, it may be that Blue city's public schools rely on significant private funding as well. Thus, a more specific analysis should be conducted in that aspect as well.
Finally, even if the 2 supposed fallacies are wrong, the factor of economic status plays an important part as well. The author did not provide any information regarding the economic wealth of Parson city and Blue city, and by that s/he fails to consider the possibility that Blue city residents might be relatively poor. This possibility may explain the gap in the prompt in a way that invalidates the author's conclusion.
Authorities have
(the) responsibility in investing in education and support the nurturing of the future generation, and therefore makes the author's intentions relevant indeed. However, the lack of comprehensive research that addresses each city as an individual, the author's argument basis is invalid.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd appreciate a review of my response, including tips for improving my writing (even one thing is good). An estimation of my overall score would also be very helpful.
I remained within the 30 minutes time limit, so I added small corrections in grey.
Thanks.
22 Feb 2021, 13:08 
