Argument Essay - GRE® AWA

[Ramphysio]

The presented Argument:

The recent resident property tax increase to improve park maintenance in Chillington is a waste of money. There is no need to improve Chillington’s parks because the people of Chillington do not enjoy outdoor recreation. I live across the street from Green Park in south Chillington, and I’ve noticed that there is never anyone in the park. Park use did not increase in warm springs last year when they implemented a similar tax. There is no reason to improve parks that will not be used.

The response:

First, the author makes a bold rejection of a decision which is directed for benefit of the civilians of Chilligton residents. His claim of collecting a resident property tax as a waste of money is immature assertion. It’s the corporation of Chilligton to decide the utility of the tax money. Incase the money is not spent on improving the park then it may be utilized for other constructive plans for the Chilligton region. So the assertion of proclaiming the tax collection as a waste of money is baseless.

The next claim author made against the park improvement declares that people of Chillington do not enjoy outdoor recreation. There the author produces hasty generalisation of the entire community of Chillington, without any survey data. Since this claim is not supported by survey data, there are chances that the author generalizes the views and interests of one or two individuals. Consequently this claim cannot be accounted.

Third, the author comes forth with an experience at Green Park in south Chillington, which is destined to a particular part and not the entire region. This may once again be an assumption, as there are many reasons for people to desolate the Green Park, like it may be woody and not maintained, lack of security and location of the park from the residential apartments do matter. So the experience provided by the author is invalid since, it do not explains the cause of its beings forsaken.

Finally, the author gives a similar occurrence which happened last year during the spring. His recalling of the previous incidences of failure in park’s effective running is also questionable, because there may be several other reasons for the failure. The Corporation may not have advertised about the reformations it made in the park, and mostly in spring people use to travel to longer distances to spend the holidays. It is understandable that, one particular reason cannot be a cause of the failure of the entire plan.

Despite the author may be correct in predicting the park’s fate, or its effectiveness, but he had not provided enough evidences and sound arguments to support his view. If he had provided statistical evidences of recreational activities of the residents of Chillington, his claims may be considered. On the other hand he might have atleast taken some pain to research for the failure of last year’s park improvement plan to present his argument about the current plan. Thus the author’s argument is unpersuasive and pointless.
_________________
Regards

Ram