AWA Score: 5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luckyashaancawasji wrote:
HI there,
What is the argument actually talking about? i feel the argument also says that the scientist will perform better as compared to the purchasing manager. I have also written my Essay on this. Could you please evaluate?
This argument claims that the dip in the revenue of the company is due to delay in manufacturing. And these delays are due to poor planning of purchasing of metals. Furthermore, the argument mentions that the manager of the purchasing department isn’t aware of the properties of metal and should be transferred to the sales force replacing the manager with a scientist who is aware of the properties of the metal. This argument is relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, this argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that knowing the properties of metals will make the purchasing of these metals faster. This statement is questionable and flawed. To illustrate- the role of a purchasing manager is nowhere technical in nature and related to the knowledge of properties of metals. The purchasing manager’s role is to create a purchase list and procure the items. The scientist decides what metals are to be bought and that order is transferred to the purchasing department which is further fulfilled. Clearly, this statement doesn’t have any relation with possessing knowledge about metals and procuring them. Hence, this argument could’ve been more clearer if it explicitly stated the connection between the properties of metals and procurement.
Secondly, the argument further assumes that the scientist will be a more efficient professional at the purchasing department on the fact that he possesses knowledge of the properties of metals as compared to the purchasing manager. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim or assumption that lacks evidence. To further explain – the scientist may not possess the right knowledge and expertise to handle purchasing and supply logistics business functions for a company, making the process of purchasing even more delayed. Plus, the delay in purchasing of metals cannot be linked to knowing the properties of the metals. There might have been other factors that affected the delay for example- the non- availability of the metal, the price of the metal really expensive, transportation delays. Due to the following reasons this statement is completely flawed and lacks evidence.
Lastly and to conclude, the whole argument discusses a delay in purchasing of metals due to the lack of possessing the knowledge of properties of metals is incorrect. The argument could be strengthened if the factors affecting the delay in purchase of metals could be explicitly mentioned as well as explaining the relation between the assumption of the scientists increased efficiency and the purchasing managers efficiency while performing business functions.