GRE Argument Essay 194
The following was published by a consumer protection agency.
“Three years ago, So-Low launched a nationwide ad campaign, focusing heavily on sunny regions and distributing free sunglasses there. But although So-Low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands, they block a smaller proportion of the Sun’s rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. A recent study suggests that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people’s eyes by creating a false sense of security. The study shows a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. These findings suggest that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brands or wear no sunglasses at all.”
The argument recommends that people, who are conscious about eye damage due to sun rays, should avoid using So-Low sunglasses and they should opt for either higher priced brands or they should wear no sunglasses at all. This recommendation is based on the findings of a recent study which has suggested that eye damage due to sun rays could be increased by using So-Low sunglasses. Moreover, the study has brought out that there has been a sharp increase in vision related problems amongst people residing in sunny areas. The arguer also brings out the fact that although So-Low sunglasses cost lower than the high priced brands, they are unable to block eye-damaging sun rays in the same proportion as the higher priced brands. However, the evidence provided by the arguer fails to lend credible support to the argument.
No evidence has been provided in support of the assumption that So-Low sunglasses block a smaller percentage of damaging sun rays as compared to the higher brands. Even if it is true that the percentage of rays being blocked by So-Low glasses is smaller, it is not necessary that the additional types of sun rays being blocked by the other brands are equally harmful. It is likely that the sun rays being blocked by the higher-priced brands include a number of rays which are not harmful at all. Therefore, the fact that So-Low sunglasses do not block all the same types of sun rays as those blocked by the higher-priced brands does not mean that using So-Low sunglasses would be harmful for the eyes. At the same time, the contention that So-Low sunglasses can increase the risk of eye-damage by creating a false sense of security among its users is largely flawed as the arguer has not been able to provide evidence that clearly links damage to the eyes with the usage of So-Low sunglasses.
A major lacuna in the information provided about the recent study is that there is no mention of the brand of sunglasses being worn by the people who have experienced vision related problems in the sunny areas. It is likely that the people who have experienced vision related problems do not use any kind of sunglasses or they probably use some other brand of sunglasses. Additionally, it is likely that people who do use So-Low sunglasses have vision related problems because they were not religiously using their sunglasses whenever they stepped out in the sun. In the absence of such information, one cannot be convinced that the sharp increase in vision problems in the sunny regions is because of the usage of So-Low sunglasses. The argument could have been substantiated to an extent by providing strong evidence that established a concrete link between the distribution of free So-Low sunglasses in sunny areas and a sharp increase in the vision related problems amongst people residing in those sunny areas. The arguer needs to prove that the people who used the free So-Low sunglasses are the same people who have experienced these vision problems. Additionally, there is a need to prove that the people who were given free So-Low sunglasses actually used them extensively.
The conclusion drawn by the arguer is the weakest link in the argument. The arguer provides no information related to the effectiveness of the higher-priced brands in reducing or eliminating the chances of vision related problems. Moreover, there is a need to provide evidence that could prove that it is better not to use any kind of sunglasses rather than using So-Low sunglasses. Therefore, in the absence of crucial evidence, the given argument has been rendered unconvincing and indefensible.