GMAT Essay Topic 544 - The following editorial appeared in the South Fork Gazette. "Last year, the city contracted with Flower Power to plant a variety of flowers in big decorative pots on Main Street and to water them each week. By mid-summer, many of the plants were wilted. This year, the city should either contract for two waterings a week or save money by planting artificial flowers in the pots. According to Flower Power, the initial cost for artificial flowers would be twice as much as for real plants, but after two years, we would come out ahead. Public reaction certainly supports this position: in a recent survey, over 1,200 Gazette readers said that the city wastes money and should find ways to reduce public spending." Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
Author: sy | Date: November 12, 2017 | Score:4 | => 5 or 6 Essays, Click Here <=
Flower power proposal from the editorial
In the editorial, it told us the contract with the city and Flower Power, and the contract is not working well. Therefore, the editorial mentions two solutions to solve the problem, increase the number of watering the plants or planting artificial flowers, and the editorial implied that the citizens will support those plans. However, stated in this way the editorial has flaws in three aspects.
First, the editorial proposes the solution, but does not explain to us the reason many plants were wilted in first place. The reason might be because Main street has many traffics and emitted gases from cars are doing harm. In that case, increasing the number of watering might not be the best solution, and protecting the plants might be the best solution. For the editorial to be more convincing, it is necessary that the editorial mentions the reason why the plan failed, and propose the solution for it.
Secondly, the editorial concludes that the citizens will support the two plans it proposes, but during the editorial it does not show strong support from the citizens. True the readers answered the city’s lavish spending should be reduced, but they did not say they want the plants to be planted. There is a possibility that most citizens don’t want many kinds of plants if they are costing a lot, and rather demand the city to stop using money on plants. The editorial bases on the idea that people want plants in their lives, thereby assuming people would agree with editorial’s proposal. This is editorial would be much more well-reasoned if it shows the evidence that people want plants in Main street, but also want the city to stop spending extravagantly.
Thirdly, this editorial assumes because over 1,200 readers answered that city needs to cut the cost of public spending, readers support the editorial’s two solutions which will cut the cost. However, no part in the editorial refers to the number of whole citizens. The residents in the city might be two thousand or two million. In the former case the editorial’s assumption might be convincing, but in the latter case the editorial’s assumption might be unconvincing. Therefore, it is important to include the number of citizens in the editorial to make it well-reasoned.
In conclusion, because of these above-mentioned reasons, this editorial is unconvincing and ill-structured. If this editorial mentions the reason why the deal with Flower Power failed in the first place, the proof that the citizens still want plants in their lives, and the number of the citizens living in the city, the editorial would be much more convincing.