Compose an essay response to the following Analysis-of-Argument prompt, which is similar to some of the ones in the testing service's official pool.
.
INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Coach yourself. Before you compose your essay, be sure to read these top GMAT essay tips and these Analysis-of-Argument QuickTips.

2. Test yourself. Read the essay prompt (below), then compose your essay response, using a word processor and limiting your time to 30 minutes. Be sure to restrict yourself to the CAT word-processing features.

3. Evaluate yourself. After completing your Analysis-of-Argument essay, evaluate it by consulting these GMAT essay scoring guidelines.

4. If you have more time...
   
   
   • Check out the Internet Edition of GMAT CAT—Answers to the Real Essay Questions (2nd Edition). There you'll find additional simulated GMAT essay questions—and model responses. (The book includes sample responses to the first 115 of the 140 official Analysis-of-Argument questions.)
     
   • Download the official GMAT essay questions, choose an Argument and compose a response to it, then compare your response with the sample in the book.

Sample Response (550 Words)

In this argument the Fern County planning commission recommends converting a library into a computer-training facility. However, the committee's recommendation rests on numerous unproven, and dubious, assumptions--about the impact of Internet access on libraries, about Fern County residents, about the adequacy of the main library, and about Mesa County and its residents. As a result, the committee's argument is unconvincing at best, as discussed below.

To begin with, the committee's argument rests on two unsubstantiated assumptions involving the cited national trend in Internet usage. One such assumption is that increasing use of the Internet as a reference source will necessarily result in decreased use, or demand, for public libraries. While this might be the case, the commission must provide firm evidence to substantiate this assumption; otherwise, it is equally plausible that the cited trend will actually enhance the popularity of libraries by stimulating intellectual and cultural interest. A second such assumption is that Fern residents reflect the national trend. The committee provides no substantiating evidence for this crucial assumption; lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that Fern residents have little interest--for whatever reason--in using the Internet for this purpose, and therefore that the proposed plan is not in their best interests.

Another problem with the argument involves the report's assertion that that there is certain to be a growing need in Fern County for computer training. In context, this claim appears to be based on the national trend in Internet usage. Yet even assuming Fern residents reflect this trend, it is entirely possible that Fern residents as a group are already highly proficient in using computers and the Internet. If so, Fern residents might very well prefer the status quo, and would not support the proposed plan.

Yet another problem with the argument involves the fact that Fern County's main library boasts a large number of books per resident. This fact alone is scant evidence that the main branch is adequate to service county residents. The committee overlooks the possibility of a future influx of county residents. The committee also ignores that the library's value lies not just in the quantity of its books but also in the quality of its books. Thus without reliable demographic projections and detailed information about the main library's inventory vis-à-vis the needs of Fern's residents, the committee cannot convince me that the main branch alone would serve the needs of county residents.

A final problem involves Mesa's plan to close all but one library. We are not informed whether Mesa residents are yet aware of the County's plan. Even if the plan has been made public, the fact that it has met little opposition does not necessarily mean that residents as a whole support the plan. Perhaps Mesa residents as a group are not inclined to voice their opinions. Or perhaps as a group they are far less concerned about library access--for whatever reason--than Fern residents are.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, rather than relying on a dubious analogy between Fern and Mesa counties, the commission should provide better evidence--perhaps by way of a countywide survey--that Fern residents will increasingly use the Internet as a substitute for the ancillary library branch, and that they would benefit from a new computer-training center.