Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
Amoghzz
Joined: 01 Apr 2018
Last visit: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: CEIBS '22 (A) NTU '21 (D) ESADE '22 (WA)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V39
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
29 Jun 2019, 09:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in the editorial of a newspaper -
"A study suggests while the manufacturing industry contributes a whopping 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government, only 10% of the subsidies, granted by the government, go to the manufacturing industry in the forms of lower cost of raw materials, fuel, etc. This is when the manufacturing industry is second only to agriculture in generating employment and, is probably the main force establishing the nation as a major economic global power. Clearly, the subsidy structure is the nation is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry."
My response
The argument states that the manufacturing industry contributes 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government but still only 10% of the total subsidies are provided to this industry. The argument also states that the manufacturing industry ranks second when it comes to generating employment, second only to Agriculture, and is the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Based on these arguments, the final conclusion reached is that the subsidy structure of the nation is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. This final conclusion reached is flawed for a number of reasons as discussed below.
Firstly, the argument assumes that 10% of the total subsidies being provided to the manufacturing industry in the forms of the lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc are less than the required amount. There are no statistics to substantiate this point, it is a shot in the dark. It may very well be the case that 10% of subsidies is more than enough for the Manufacturing industry as these things vary from sector to sector.
Secondly, it has been assumed that there should be a positive correlation between the contribution of an Industry in the total tax collections and the portion of total subsidies that the Industry should get. It very well can be the very opposite for all we know. There should be proper statistics to support this assumption.
Finally, the argument has been made that since the Manufacturing industry is second when it comes to generating employment, it is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. There are no statistics to support this argument. Moreover, it has been stated clearly that the Agricultural sector employs more people than the Manufacturing sector but still the Manufacturing sector has been credited with being the main force behind the nations' economic growth. There is no annual revenue and profit report to compare both the sectors or for that matter all the sectors of the economy.
In conclusion, the final conclusion reached by the given argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. Also, for these arguments to be valid, proper statistics should be provided with respect to the productivity of all the sectors of the economy, the role total number of jobs in a sector plays on its total output and reasons as to why sectors with a higher contribution to the tax collected should be given higher subsidies.
"A study suggests while the manufacturing industry contributes a whopping 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government, only 10% of the subsidies, granted by the government, go to the manufacturing industry in the forms of lower cost of raw materials, fuel, etc. This is when the manufacturing industry is second only to agriculture in generating employment and, is probably the main force establishing the nation as a major economic global power. Clearly, the subsidy structure is the nation is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry."
My response
The argument states that the manufacturing industry contributes 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government but still only 10% of the total subsidies are provided to this industry. The argument also states that the manufacturing industry ranks second when it comes to generating employment, second only to Agriculture, and is the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Based on these arguments, the final conclusion reached is that the subsidy structure of the nation is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. This final conclusion reached is flawed for a number of reasons as discussed below.
Firstly, the argument assumes that 10% of the total subsidies being provided to the manufacturing industry in the forms of the lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc are less than the required amount. There are no statistics to substantiate this point, it is a shot in the dark. It may very well be the case that 10% of subsidies is more than enough for the Manufacturing industry as these things vary from sector to sector.
Secondly, it has been assumed that there should be a positive correlation between the contribution of an Industry in the total tax collections and the portion of total subsidies that the Industry should get. It very well can be the very opposite for all we know. There should be proper statistics to support this assumption.
Finally, the argument has been made that since the Manufacturing industry is second when it comes to generating employment, it is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. There are no statistics to support this argument. Moreover, it has been stated clearly that the Agricultural sector employs more people than the Manufacturing sector but still the Manufacturing sector has been credited with being the main force behind the nations' economic growth. There is no annual revenue and profit report to compare both the sectors or for that matter all the sectors of the economy.
In conclusion, the final conclusion reached by the given argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. Also, for these arguments to be valid, proper statistics should be provided with respect to the productivity of all the sectors of the economy, the role total number of jobs in a sector plays on its total output and reasons as to why sectors with a higher contribution to the tax collected should be given higher subsidies.
01 Jul 2019, 11:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
I strongly believe your AWA attempt is very good; you've substantiated your points well, and there're only a few grammar errors. Overall, it's a great essay and you'd easily get an AWA score of 5.5 - 6 on real GMAT for a similar essay. Therefore, you can now uncheck the AWA effort. All the best!
That said, I am moving the topic to the appropriate forum: AWA.
That said, I am moving the topic to the appropriate forum: AWA.
06 Mar 2022, 12:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my response
The argument states that while the manufacturing industry contributes 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government, only 10% of total subsidies granted by the government go to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc. This is when the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Based on the above, the argument concludes that the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. Stated this way the argument tries to manipulate facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and also it fails to mention key factors on the basis of which it should be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that total subsidies being provided to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc are less than the required amount. This statement is a stretch since the argument does not provide any statistics to explain this point. It may be the case that the wastage level in the manufacturing industry is very high and therefore the subsidies provide seem less than whereas are more than sufficient. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the reasons for the subsidies not being enough.
Second, the argument claims that the manufacturing industry is second only to agriculture in generating employment and, is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. This is again a very weak argument and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between generating employment and being the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Even if the claim that the manufacturing industry is second in terms of employment generation is accepted, one can readily assume that the agriculture industry generates over 90% of the total employment in the country and the manufacturing industry generates a maximum of 5%, which is the second-highest. If the argument had provided evidence about the percentage of contribution towards total employment level, the argument could have been a lot stronger.
Finally, the argument has concluded that since the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power, the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. This is an unconvincing conclusion because it has not provided any statistical data about the revenues, profits or employment percentage etc. Without convincing statistical data about the previously mentioned items, one is left with an impression that the claims are more of wishful thinking than substantial facts.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation or decision, it is essential to have full knowledge about the facts.
The argument states that while the manufacturing industry contributes 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government, only 10% of total subsidies granted by the government go to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc. This is when the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Based on the above, the argument concludes that the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. Stated this way the argument tries to manipulate facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and also it fails to mention key factors on the basis of which it should be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that total subsidies being provided to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc are less than the required amount. This statement is a stretch since the argument does not provide any statistics to explain this point. It may be the case that the wastage level in the manufacturing industry is very high and therefore the subsidies provide seem less than whereas are more than sufficient. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the reasons for the subsidies not being enough.
Second, the argument claims that the manufacturing industry is second only to agriculture in generating employment and, is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. This is again a very weak argument and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between generating employment and being the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Even if the claim that the manufacturing industry is second in terms of employment generation is accepted, one can readily assume that the agriculture industry generates over 90% of the total employment in the country and the manufacturing industry generates a maximum of 5%, which is the second-highest. If the argument had provided evidence about the percentage of contribution towards total employment level, the argument could have been a lot stronger.
Finally, the argument has concluded that since the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power, the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. This is an unconvincing conclusion because it has not provided any statistical data about the revenues, profits or employment percentage etc. Without convincing statistical data about the previously mentioned items, one is left with an impression that the claims are more of wishful thinking than substantial facts.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation or decision, it is essential to have full knowledge about the facts.
