GED Essay Example: Electric Vehicles
With the rising popularity of electric vehicles, GED writing prompts frequently ask about their advantages and drawbacks. This GED essay on electric vehicles guides you in considering different viewpoints, backing up your claims with evidence, and crafting a coherent, high-scoring response for the RLA test.
Read the prompt and task instruction below. Your task is to write a well-organized extended response of at least 300 words in 45 minutes, as shown in the Model Response that follows.
GED Essay Samples by Topics
Task Instruction
Analyze the arguments presented in the two speeches. In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree. This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Powering the Future: The Need for Strong EV Incentives
By Dr. Susan Clark, Transportation Policy Researcher
Electric vehicle incentives represent a smart investment in America’s environmental future and economic competitiveness. Government tax credits and rebates help overcome the initial cost barriers that prevent many consumers from choosing cleaner transportation options. By making electric vehicles more affordable, these incentives accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel dependence while creating jobs in emerging green industries.
The environmental benefits of electric vehicle adoption are substantial and well-documented. Transportation accounts for nearly 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, with personal vehicles contributing the largest share. Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions and become even cleaner as the electrical grid incorporates more renewable energy sources. Studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists demonstrate that electric vehicles generate significantly lower lifetime emissions than gasoline cars, even accounting for battery production and electricity generation.
Air quality improvements from increased electric vehicle usage provide immediate health benefits for communities. Urban areas with high traffic density experience dangerous levels of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from vehicle exhaust, contributing to asthma, heart disease, and premature death. Electric vehicles eliminate these local pollutants, particularly benefiting low-income neighborhoods that are often located near busy highways and suffer disproportionately from air pollution-related health problems.
Economic arguments for electric vehicle incentives are equally compelling. The emerging electric vehicle industry creates high-quality manufacturing jobs and positions American companies to compete in the global clean energy economy. Countries like China and Norway are rapidly expanding their electric vehicle markets, and American incentives help domestic automakers develop competitive products and maintain market share. Without government support, foreign manufacturers could dominate this growing sector.
Electric vehicle incentives also reduce long-term costs for consumers and society. While electric vehicles currently cost more upfront, they require less maintenance than gasoline cars and have lower fuel costs per mile. Owners save money on oil changes, brake repairs, and other routine maintenance. Additionally, reduced gasoline consumption decreases American dependence on volatile oil markets and potentially unstable foreign suppliers.
Infrastructure development benefits from electric vehicle incentives as well. As more consumers purchase electric vehicles, businesses invest in charging stations, creating a network that supports further adoption. This positive cycle accelerates the transition to clean transportation without requiring massive government infrastructure spending.
Furthermore, electric vehicle incentives help address market failures in the automotive industry. Traditional automakers have been slow to invest in electric technology due to established gasoline car production systems and uncertain consumer demand. Government incentives provide market signals that encourage innovation and competition, ultimately benefiting consumers through better products and lower prices.
Battery technology improvements driven by increased electric vehicle demand create benefits beyond transportation. Advanced batteries support renewable energy storage, helping solar and wind power become more reliable. These technological spillovers justify public investment in electric vehicle incentives.
As a final observation, electric vehicle incentives offer a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, improve public health, and strengthen American economic competitiveness. The upfront government investment pays dividends through environmental benefits, job creation, and reduced long-term costs. Supporting electric vehicle adoption through targeted incentives represents responsible policy that benefits current and future generations.
The Downside of Driving Electric with Government Help
By Mike Davis, Transportation Economics Specialist
Electric vehicle incentives waste taxpayer money by subsidizing wealthy consumers while failing to deliver promised environmental benefits. These programs redistribute income from working families to affluent buyers who can afford expensive new cars, creating an unfair system that benefits the rich at everyone else’s expense. Meanwhile, the actual environmental impact remains questionable when considering electricity generation sources and battery production processes.
The biggest issue with electric vehicle incentives is that they primarily help higher-income earners. Low-income families spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, transportation, and basic goods. All of which become more expensive under carbon pricing. While wealthy households can afford electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, and home improvements, working families have limited options for reducing their carbon footprint. They face higher heating bills, gas prices, and grocery costs without viable alternatives, making carbon taxes essentially a penalty on poverty.
Electric vehicle incentives also distort the automotive market by picking winners and losers through government intervention. Rather than allowing consumer preferences and technological innovation to drive change naturally, these programs artificially inflate demand for products that may not represent the best solutions. Taxpayers should not be forced to gamble on specific technologies that may become obsolete or prove less effective than alternatives.
The environmental benefits of electric vehicles are overstated when considering the full lifecycle impact. Most electricity in the United States still comes from fossil fuel sources, meaning electric vehicles simply shift emissions from tailpipes to power plants. Coal and natural gas generation for electric vehicle charging can produce more pollution than efficient gasoline engines, particularly in regions with dirty electrical grids. Additionally, battery production requires environmentally destructive mining of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements, often in countries with poor environmental and labor standards.
Electric vehicle incentives impose significant costs on government budgets at all levels. Federal tax credits reduce revenue by billions of dollars annually, while state and local incentives add additional fiscal burdens. These programs force taxpayers to subsidize private consumption choices while governments face pressure to cut spending on essential services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The opportunity cost of electric vehicle incentives means less funding available for programs that benefit broader populations.
Rural and low-income communities receive minimal benefits from electric vehicle incentives despite bearing the tax burden. Rural residents often drive longer distances and lack access to charging infrastructure, making electric vehicles impractical regardless of price incentives. Urban apartments and rental properties frequently lack charging options, excluding many city dwellers from electric vehicle ownership. These geographic and housing limitations mean incentive benefits concentrate in wealthy suburban areas.
Besides, electric vehicle incentives may delay development of better alternatives by locking in current battery technology. Hydrogen fuel cells, synthetic fuels, or other innovations might prove superior to battery electric vehicles, but government subsidies create artificial market advantages that discourage competing technologies. This could slow progress toward truly optimal transportation solutions.
The complexity and administrative costs of electric vehicle incentive programs also waste resources. Government agencies must process applications, verify eligibility, and prevent fraud, requiring bureaucratic overhead that reduces program efficiency. Dealers and consumers face paperwork burdens and confusion about changing eligibility requirements.
Market evidence suggests that electric vehicle incentives are unnecessary for adoption. Tesla’s success in selling expensive electric vehicles without relying heavily on incentives demonstrates that consumer demand exists for quality products. As battery costs decline naturally through technological progress, electric vehicles will become competitive without subsidies.
In conclusion, electric vehicle incentives represent poor public policy that benefits wealthy consumers at taxpayer expense while delivering questionable environmental returns. Rather than subsidizing private vehicle purchases, governments should focus on public transportation improvements, infrastructure investments, and research funding that benefit all citizens. Market forces and technological progress will drive electric vehicle adoption more efficiently than costly government intervention.
Model Response on GED Essay Electric Vehicles Topic
Both authors offer valuable insights on electric vehicle incentives, but Davis presents a more convincing argument by focusing on practical challenges and equity concerns that Dr. Clark overlooks.
Davis provides a more realistic picture of who actually benefits from these incentives. His point that over 80% of tax credits go to wealthy families earning more than $100,000 shows a major fairness problem. While rich people can afford new electric cars with or without incentives, working families end up paying taxes to subsidize purchases they can’t afford themselves. Dr. Clark doesn’t address this inequality issue at all.
Davis also makes a strong point about rural and low-income communities getting no benefits from these programs. People in apartments can’t install charging stations, and rural families need to drive long distances where charging isn’t available. Dr. Clark talks about helping everyone, but Davis shows how the incentives only work for wealthy suburban families.
The environmental argument that Davis raises is also convincing. When most electricity still comes from coal and natural gas, electric vehicles just move pollution from car exhaust to power plants. His point about battery mining and production creating environmental damage shows that the benefits aren’t as clear as Dr. Clark claims.
Dr. Clark’s argument about creating jobs sounds good, but Davis shows that the government is essentially forcing taxpayers to pay for those jobs. The market might create different and better jobs naturally without subsidies.
The point Davis makes about delaying better technologies is also important. If the government picks battery electric vehicles as winners, companies might not develop hydrogen cars or other alternatives that could be better solutions.
Overall, Davis presents a more complete argument because he considers how electric vehicle incentives affect different groups of people and questions whether they actually work. While Dr. Clark focuses on potential benefits, Davis examines real-world costs and consequences. His argument shows that these incentives might create unfairness and waste money without delivering the environmental improvements they promise.
While the authors want to help the environment, Davis makes a better case that electric vehicle incentives aren’t the right way to do it fairly and effectively.
(353 words)
