Here are my comments:
1. Good use of templates and transitions - the essay is well organised.
2. There are several grammatical mistakes
3. You need to elaborate more on each of the points of contention
Let me elaborate on this: find my comments inline to your response.
The argument claims that immigrant workers are the reason of downward pressure on wages. Hence, we need to impose
a moratorium on further immigration in order to protect the local economy. 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 a weak evidence, from which we could not draw the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because the inflow of immigrant workers, the average compensation of unskilled labor goes downward. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way.
- How? Show how this weakens the argument! There are many examples in the big cities which average salary goes up thank to the immigrant workers. For instance, Hanoi is Vietnam's capital where millions of immigrant workers annually go to. As the result of immigrant workers, the whole economy grows up which leads to the raise of average compensation.
This doesn't necessarily weaken the argument.
Second, the argument claims that it is necessary to impose a moratorium on further immigration. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the inflow of immigrant workers and the average compensation.
- Show how this weakens the argument!
Moreover, The argument fails to consider all the other economic reasons. In fact, there are many factors can lead to the decrease of unskilled labor such as bad economy, bad human resource plan,... In additional, if the argument provided more evidence, the argument could be strengthened further.
Last but not least, the argument concludes that the moratorium can help increase the unskilled labour's compensation. From this statement again, it is not all clear how the regulation can work to make the economy go up. There are a lot of evidence unsupported this conclusion. For examples, USA has imposed many laws to regulate the number of immigrant workers. It does not work well because a lot of people still want to go to the wonder land - USA. Without any supporting evidence and examples from the other communities, one is left with the impression that the claims is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, 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.
To further my point:
The assumptions you have zoned in on are precise! - Good job.
But do not forget to show how this flawed assumption could weaken the argument.
Incorporate this, and ensure that you proof read your essay; your score should jump to a 4.5-5!
Don't let Modifiers leave your GMAT Verbal scores 'Dangling'! Attend this webinar on 27th August and learn quick and proven techniques to solve tough modifier questions in just 2 minutes: http://goo.gl/SioIBd
For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal