Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
I am giving my gmat for the first time on 28th july. Could some1 pls review my essay n arguments
Essay Question :
“Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company.”
Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Essay Answer :
I find the view that higher salaries are necessary to attract the best managers to be more compelling than the view that salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employess.
Primarily ,the people whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company need to be provided an appropriate salary. In case that these executives are not paid a suitable renumerarion, it is highly probable that they would leave the company in search of other greener pastures. Apart from the cost of finding replacements for vacancies in important positions, there is also a very high probability that similarly talented people may not want to work for the renumeration offered.
Secondarily,the position of the company would be like that of a ship without its captain. In case that there are not competent enough people to provide the proper direction and strategy of the company , not only the company but also all its employees including the lowest-paid employess would be facing a crisis. Various companies have faced such situations when their top exectives have left the organization. Thus it is of primary importance that every effort is taken to retain them .
Increasing worker productivity requires the efficient work of the corporte executives since they would be at the forefront of any strategies which would have to implemented to find holes in the current operation method or fine tuning the already efficient methods. It would be a condition of false reasoning to consider that salary is the sole reason for causing labor disputes.In fact proper and fair action is needed by the exectives in order to smoothen any ruffled feathers and avoid labor disputes. The relations will only turn for the worst if the managers feel that they are being under-paid because of the lowest-paid employees and this would cause unnecessary tension between them.
It is of no doubt that everybody- from the CEO to the lowest-paid employee- has an important role to play for the organization to run smoothly. However the value add that each person gives to the company is different and salary has to match this value addition that they are providing.
Instead of reducing the salary of the exectives, other preventive and corrective measures can be initiated so as to improve the relations between management and workers ,as well as reducing costly labor disputes. Disputes can be primarly avoided if the relation between each employee is good. This can be achieved by integrating everyone into the company fold and having a flat hierarchy . Also the adequare measures to monitor the mood and morale of the workforce can be implemented.
To sum, I would like to state my opinion that it would not be prudent to link the salary of the corporate executives to those of the lowest-paid employees
Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.”
I find the argument “Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated” is neither well-reasoned nor well substantiated.
Primarily, the conclusion ,that states that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated , is too over drawn. Removing all limits on freedom of expression would only cause chaos and confusion in the society. Since each person would be at liberty to state his/her opinion, a consensus can never be reached on many important issues. Removing all limitation on what you are allowed to say will only lead to a plethora of speeches spewing hate and vengeance. If people act on these misguided information, only destruction would occur. Various terrorist acts are killing mankind all over the people because the terrorist leaders still have the complete freedom of expression. Many more examples such as racist and sexist remarks and speeches targeting particular religion need to be eliminated for the society to thrive. Without any curbs on the freedom of expression, it would be very risky to deal with secret matters that are of utmost national importance. Failure to keep them a secret can be very costly for the people being involved in them and hence in this situation, there has to be curatiling of the freedom of expression .
Secondarily, I object to various points that are being stated by the premises. It is not absolutely necessary that the new ideas which have the potential to change the society for the better require limitless freedom of expression. The author has not provided any evidence to substantiate the fact that new ideas cannot be introduced into the society if there is any limit on the freedom of expression. It is not clear how can a possible ban on racist remarks can stop new ideas being introduced into the society. Also it is better for the society to stagnatre rather subscribe to new ideas which would be detrimental to the society in the long run.
Despite the risk that the freedom of expression could be completely snatched away from the people, having no limits on the freedom of expression would be still more dangerous. Freedom of expression could be completely denied to people living under autocratic governments or dictators or even democracies for that matter. However, since the society has the liberty and power to state its opinion , the risk is highly reduced. Recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are examples for this.
Instead of going to the either of the extreme ends - unlimited freedom and complete suppression- it would be best to take the middle path. Reasonable and acceptable boundaries could be set for the limits of freedom of expression. These can be either in the form of legal boundaries or boundries which the society itself has set for itself. Sufficient opportunities should be given to people to voide their dissenting opinion so as to lend a fair hearing of all different points of view but any view which has the capacity to harm any individual or the society has to be restricted.
To sum, I would like to reiterate the point that a societ without any limits on freedom of expression will not be able to thrive because of the fore-mentioned risks in giving a free reign for everyone to express their views.
Re: Could some 1 pls review my awa
25 Jul 2011, 11:28