Rating this AWA GMAT
[#permalink]
19 Feb 2016, 12:52
Please rate this Awa and assist me in further improvement of the reasons provided.
The following appeared as part of a memorandum from a government agency:
“Given the limited funding available for the building and repair of roads and bridges, the government should not spend
any money this year on fixing the bridge that crosses the Styx River. This bridge is located near a city with a weakening
economy, so it is not as important as other bridges; moreover, the city population is small and thus unlikely to contribute
a significant enough tax revenue to justify the effort of fixing the bridge.”
The above argument provided by the author tries to establish a conclusion with assumptions that can't be justified. The evidence and the facts provided to bolster the conclusion don't provide enough information for a reader to arrive a solidified takeaway. Thus, adding a bewildered understanding of the argument provided. Comparisons and the analogy used to reason can't be used properly even to re-conceptualise the ending.
Moving on to the first flaw, the argument uses the words limited and any, which leave a reader in a complex situation of interpretation. Limited funds for some may be a figure that differs hugely as per someone else's interpretation. Not spending any funds, is too extreme a clause to be used in the argument. Had the argument provided some concrete figures then a premise might have been considered to be formed in order to render support for the conclusion of the argument, that is, not continuing with the repairing of the bridge. Moreover the argument also talks about repair and building of roads, which has been ignored in the continuing premises and insufficient information has been provided in the context of decisions related to roads.
Secondly, the argument is based on a faulty assumption. The cause and effect relation, which is being explained in the argument is out of concrete scope. Location does play an important role in taking major decisions but blaming the weak economy and stating the importance of the bridge on this cause is not just and digestible thought. The argument tries to form an assumption that the strength of the economy forms as a decisive parameter for comparison with other bridges which is a bit pinching to a rational decision that needs to be made. Had the argument tried to establish that it is the sole parameter for judgement then to some extent, this premise provided might have sounded soothing enough. The argument also assumes that the population size is comparable to the revenue that particular population can contribute. But what if this small sized population has some big wealthy guns who can contribute to the revenues collection. Thus, generalising the population size and the financial status is a wrong assumption. If enough information were provided to relate the monetary status of the population then some conclusion could have been drawn regarding the building and repair of the roads and bridges.
Overall, the argument stands flawed because of its structure, missing figures, insufficient data and information to arrive at a conclusion. And in order to reinforce the argument in a strong manner, the above mentioned flaws need to be rectified along with the assumptions such as providing enough information related to roads to arrive at a conclusion of roads, eliminating the use of extreme words such as any, providing information about the monetary status of small population and redefining the standards of comparison i.e apart from comparing location and importance, the author should try providing enough information or try establishing a valid basis of comparison to establish which bridge is more important and which is not.