GRE® Argument

[Eisazadeh]

Hi everyone, Please evaluate my essay.
Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling.

--------------------------------
In this memo, the author states that Impecunia by establishing a state lottery could use the profits from it for improving the state's education and public health programs. To support this claim the author cites (1) the neighboring state of Lucria established a lottery two years ago, (2) today Lucria spends more per pupil, (3) today Lucria treats more people through its health programs than Impecunia does. This memo also cites a study showing that the average Impecunia resident now spends $50 per year on gambling. In several respects, however, the evidence provides no clearer support for such an argument.

At first, the fact that Lucria now spends more than Impecunia per pupil lends no supports to the argument. Perhaps, Lucria has had more funds than Impecunia to spend on its programs, including education and health schools. Lacking clear evidences that the state lottery established by Lucria successfully raised revenues, caused, in itself, to increase the amount spent per pupil, and therefore we cannot expect this claim that by establishing a similar lottery, education programs of Impecunia would definitely improve.

Secondly, there are also no explicit evidences that treating more people in Lucria than Impecunia is results of gaining profits of establishing lottery state. Perhaps Impecunia's residents require a greater measure of health care because Lucria's population is greater than Impecunia's, or perhaps its residents are older. Without considering these and other possible explanations, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Lucria's lottery was responsible for improving health care in that state.

Moreover, the argument unfairly assumes that the lottery in Lucria has been profitable. The author provides no evidence that this is the case. It is entirely possible that the money used for education and health care in Lucria comes from sources other than the lottery. Without accounting for this possibility, the author cannot justify the conclusion that a lottery in Impecunia would be successful.

In conclusion, the editorial has not convinced me that a lottery would be profitable and would serve to improve Impecunia's education and health programs. To better evaluate the argument I would need more information comparing Lucria's level of health care and education expenditures before and after the lottery was established.