1.

General Structure

Intro - Restate argument, point out flaws or state intention to discuss them below
1st Para - First,...
2nd Para - Second/In addition,...
3rd Para - Third/Finally,...
Conclusion - The argument is flawed/weak/unconvincing because of the above -
mentioned...Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened if/by...

2. Structural Word (should be all over the essays)

1. Supporting examples - for example, to illustrate, for instance, because, specifically

2. Additional support - furthermore, in addition, similarly, just as, also, as a result,
moreover
3. Importance - surely, truly, undoubtedly, clearly, in fact, most importantly
4. Contrast - on the contrary, yet, despite, rather, instead, however, although, while
5. Decide against - one cannot deny that, it could be argued that, granted, admittedly
6. Ying-yang - on the one hand/on the other hand
7. Concluding - therefore, in summary, consequently, hence, in conclusion, ultimately, in
closing

3. Templates

Intro:
The argument claims that ....(restate)
Stated in this way the argument:
a) manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation
b) reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology
c) fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated
The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence.
Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.

1st Para:
First, the argument readily assumes that......
This statement is a stretch....
For example,...
Clearly,...
The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that...
2nd Para:
Second, the argument claims that....
This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any
correlation between....and...
To illustrate,...
While,...
However,....indeed....
In fact, it is not at all clear...rather....
If the argument had provided evidence that.....then the argument would have been a lot
more convincing.

3rd Para:
Finally,...
(pose some questions for the argument).....Without convincing answers to these questions,
one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than
substantive evidence.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore
unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the
relevant facts....
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full
knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case....
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

4. Going from the templates to full-fledged essays

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:[/b]

"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it
provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter
and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not working because it is
self regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an
independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate
the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic
and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting
evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also
discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes
would make the argument more logically sound.

YOUR RESPONSE:
Quote:
The argument claims that the electronic games rating system, although similar to the movie
rating system, is not working because it is self regulated and violation fines are nominal,
Hence, the gaming rating system should be overseen by an independent body. Stated in this
way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be
evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence.
Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that because the electronic game rating system is self
regulated, it is not working well. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any
way. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the
entities are self regulated and rather successful. For instance, FIA, the Formula1 racing
organization is self regulated. Yet, the sport is very popular and successful, drawing millions
of spectators around the world each year. Tickets are rather expensive, races are shown on
pay-per-view, and nearly all drivers are paid very well. Another example is the paralleled
movie rating system that the argument mentions. The author fails to clarify whether it is
working well, but it is clear that the movie rating system is pretty well received by people,
who often base their decisions to go see a movie with kids or not on the movie rating. It has
never been a case when someone would feel cheated by the movie rating and express
disappointment afterwards. Since the movie rating system is also self regulated, it follows
that this regulatory method is working pretty well and it is not obvious how it can be the
reason for the poor electronic game rating system. The argument would have been much
clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how the self regulatory system led to bad ratings and
customer dissatisfaction.

Second, the argument claims that any violation fees for bad electronic game ratings are
nominal. It thus suggests that this is yet another reason for the rating system not working.
This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any
correlation between the monetary amount of the fines and the quality of the electronic
game rating system. In fact, the argument does not even draw a parallel with the mentioned
movie rating system and its violation fines. If any such correlation had been shown for the
movie rating system, which supposedly works well, then the author would have sounded a
bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that low violation fines
lead to electronic game manufacturers to ignore any regulations with respect to the game
rating system, the argument could have been strengthened even further.

Finally, the argument concludes that an independent body should oversee the game
industry and companies that violate the rating system, should be punished. From this
statement again, it is not at all clear how an independent regulatory body can do a better
job than a self regulated one. Without supporting evidence and examples from other
businesses where independent regulatory bodies have done a great job, one is left with the
impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As
a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably

strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the
merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
5. Final tips

 During the tutorial type in a few sentences in the mock essay window to get used to
the keyboard.
 Again during the tutorial, jot down on your notebook the basic structure of your essays
or the opening sentences in case you get too nervous and forget them when the clock
starts ticking.
 Write as much as you can. Try to write at least 500 words per essay.
 Always have the e-rater in mind as your potential reviewer. Remember that the human
rater will make every effort to grade just like the e-rater. In that sense, keep your
structure and volume in mind over actual quality/content.
 Be careful of spelling mistakes. Double check words that you normally know you
misspell (e.g. exercise). Try to finish 2-3 minutes before time is up so you can slowly re-
read your essay for the purposes of spell checking. Do not reorganize/delete
sentences/paragraphs with less than 2 min left.
 No matter how great you thought your essays went, try to stay humble and focused -
remember this was just a warm-up and the real stuff hasn't started yet!
Here is an essay I wrote for a PR Test - Graded a 6.0 (normally they grade harder than real
thing)

Prompt: “The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the
number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and
national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every
effort must be made to return them to their country of origin.”

Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure
to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example,
you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what
alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also
discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in
the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you
better evaluate its conclusion.

"This argument relies heavily on unverified assumptions and has a very extreme
conclusion. The author fails to make logical connections between the evidence provided
and the conclusion that all illegal aliens must be returned to their country of origin.

The first problem with the argument is that it suffers from multiple unsubstantiated
claims. The first evidence that is given to support the extreme conclusion is that the
autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders. This statement is also
extreme because it infers that every countries autonomy could be ranked by the strength
of its borders. There are many European countries that have very little strength exerted at
the borders, but still maintain autonomy. The author should clarify this statement by
grouping countries together or using a more vague statement that would include most
countries but not all.

The next statement in the argument is conditional phrase stating that the more illegal
immigrants that enter a country the worse off the economy and national identity will be.
While this statement might be true for some countries it is certainly not true for all
countries. The very foundation of early US society was based on immigrant labor and
culture that brought from over the sea. There are still many countries whose economy is
heavily dependent on immigrant labor. Even though many economist feel this statement is
true in the US today, most would disagree that this statement is true of all countries.

The final portion of the author's argument is the conclusion. The conclusion states that the
because of disadvantages mentioned earlier all illegal immigrants must be returned to
their country of origin. Although this statement might appear to be a logical conclusion of
this extreme argument it fails to take extra information into account. The author doesn't
give any indication on how extreme these problems will be or how costly it will be to
return the amount of illegal aliens to their home country. What if the cost to the economy
was half the amount that it would cost to send all of the immigrants back to their country
of origin? The author could use some monetary figures to prove that some savings would
be incurred if all illegal immigrants were deported.
In conclusion, the argument suffers from logical flaws and makes an extreme conclusion
based on unproven assumptions. The addition of hard examples and connections between
the statements would prove to strengthen the argument."

*This just shows you how you don't have to write great to get a good score*