How to get 6.0 AWA....my guide

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.

Some people think that productivity at work could be increased if workers are provided with free exercise facilities and wellness classes, as this will improve the workers health and diminish the level of stress in the office. Other people support the claim that people should manage their own health and stress level outside the work space. The issue is a controversial one but a closer examination reveals that companies that promote healthy living among their employees are indeed more productive.

One reason is that people often do not find the motivation or the energy to go to a wellness class and exercise outside of work. Most people are usually very tired by the end of the work day and have other family duties or priorities to worry about. For example, doing grocery shopping, cooking, picking up the kids from practice, etc. Therefore, it is very difficult for such people to make time for exercising and maintain healthy habits. As a result, the stress from a long day of work at the office gets carried over to the next day and the pattern repeats. Eventually, the health of those people worsens and their productivity on the job diminishes.

Another reason is that people often find it attractive to do what their friends or colleagues do. For instance, if five colleagues of a worker join a pilates class and are happy about it, they then tend to recommend it to the worker in question and she will eventually join the class. Contagious behavior such as this can be very easily achieved on the job if pilates classes are offered, because then the discovery of the opportunity and the motivation to join are easily found. Hence, exercising at work becomes a very comfortable activity easily fit into a schedule and promotes the health and happiness of the employees. They not only feel better heath-wise after exercise, but also strengthen relationships with co-workers by doing activities together. In a way, this whole experience can be viewed as team building. Consequently, workers are more energized, alert and therefore productive in their jobs.

Perhaps the best reason is that by providing free exercise facilities and wellness classes companies improve their image and become attractive places to be at for future employees. Not only can such companies attract more viable candidates for new openings, but they can also retain longer the employees they already have. To illustrate this point, let us take Google for example. The company was recently ranked as the best one to work at. One of the main criteria for achieving this rank was the fact that the company takes very good care of its employees in terms of encouraging healthy living. There are numerous sports facilities on the Google campus which people are encouraged to use. Those include gyms, swimming pools, volleyball courts, massage chairs, etc. Personal trainers are also available for free for anyone that needs them. There is also a health center facility on site. With that kind of environment it is difficult to not take advantage and live a healthy living, resulting in better productivity on the job.

In summary, while there are arguments to be made for both sides of the issue, it is clear that there are much greater advantages for companies to provide their workers with free health facilities and classes. Workers find it not only much easier to take advantage of such opportunities on site, but also are much more motivated to do so there. Participating in sports activities improves the workers' mood, desire to work hard, keeps them healthy, and creates a bond among workers. As a result, this translates to a better productivity of the workers and ultimately to maximized profits for the company.

to add to chineseburn, veritas tells you in paragraph #5 (before conclusion and after 3rd point) to add what would have made the arguement issues stronger (analyze the arguement) or to criticize your own arguement (issues question). They say to write 6 paragraphs.

Can someone use the exact words of the example above, or a little modification must be made?
In other words, if 100 people put the same templates, is there some kind of constraint from GMAT to do this? Will the scores be low? Or at least If I create my own template, can I use it over and over the same if I retake the test? Will the later scores be low? How the raters see that?
Are my essays send to business schools? Or just the score?

Hi everyone,

I'm new here & I'm glad I finally found an AWA thread. My appreciations to the author of this guide, it is very helpful. However, I have a few questions about AWA that was not covered:

1. Does anyone have suggestions on the use of common abbreviations and acronyms (as a time saving method)? Would the computer rater grade such usage as spelling errors?

Example 1: I want to replace the word "and" with the symbol "&".
Example 2: If I am writing about small and medium enterprises, instead of writing out the whole phrase "small and medium enterprises" every time I refer to them, I would like to write out the complete phrase the first time, followed by an acronym in parentheses, and write ONLY the acronym in future uses.
Preferred usage - "An effective strategy for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) would be... Therefore, by doing..., SMEs can successfully..."

2. Does AWA affect the overall score (on the 200-800 scale) in anyway? How important is the AWA section?

If these questions were already asked/answered in other threads, it would be great if someone pointed me in that direction. Thanks for advance for any help given.

You mentioned to type at least 500 words per text. On the test it is shown the number of words or characters I typed or do I have to estimate that?

How long after we write the GMAT do we receive the AWA mark?