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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
04 Jan 2017, 12:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello,
I have just finished writing my first AWA Essay and looking for feedback.
Admittedly the model answer has been published however I thought it be best to gain tailored feedback to my actual response.
I planned and wrote the essay in 30 mins (test conditions).
5 mins planning
20 mins writing
5 mins proofreading
Question: "Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Answer:
The Author believes that making the workplace a safer environment will lead to cost reductions through reduced payroll and wage expenditures by limiting associated risks to physical injury to employees while they conduct their daily job responsibilities. This conclusion is deeply flawed for numerous reasons, including but not limited to: lack of costing information regarding implementation of safety procedures, lack of data regarding labour supply and ability to attract talent and lastly, whether new safety procedures will actually increase the safety of the work environment.
Firstly, the author fails to provide any useful data to make a useful cost analysis to allow the audience to create a useful analysis. Example, if the safety procedures cost £20,000,000 to design and implement, but only help reduce wages and payroll expenses by £20,000, then implementing such safety procedures will not be a beneficial course of action, as cost saving will take many years to be realised. Conversely if safety procedures are cheap to implement costing £5,000 and saving over £5,000,000 in payroll and wage expenses providing improved safety can be a clear way to realise such reductions in expenses. Therefore it is paramount for the author to provide this information to strengthen both the assumption and the conclusion.
Secondly, the author provides no information about labour market supply, wages may be high in order to attract talented employees. Example, if safety is implemented at extra costs and salaries and wages reduced, certain companies may find it difficult to attract new employees if the supply of labour is not sufficient. Therefore, improving safety may just lead to extra costs as high wages and payroll expenses will need to be retained to attract the limited talent within the labour market. Conversely if enough labour was available within the labour market, wages could be reduced and safety increase simultaneously to ensure new employees are attracted and current employees retained (better working conditions). This information would strengthen both the assumptions of the author and their conclusions.
Thirdly, the author provides no information about current safety within companies, the phrase 'make the workplace safer' is very vague, with many companies unable to make their workplaces safer due to the nature of the industry or job, a classic example is oil drilling using oil rigs in the North Atlantic ocean, there is a limit to how safe risk environments can be made, without wasting money. Furthermore, many companies and industries have safety audits ensuring that employees are protected adequately for their roles and responsibilities, therefore the author should provide information and examples to improve clarity to their assumption as to whether this is achievable or even necessary. The author could correct this through providing statistics on the number of accidents in the workplace within different industries to help analyses whether implementing improved safety is at all necessary or impactful to help reduce wages and payroll expenditure.
Lastly, providing all the aforementioned information to the reader would strengthen the authors conclusion as to whether improving safety would help reduce payroll expenses and wages, however in the arguments current form the assumptions and conclusions are extremely weak and inconclusive.
My answer is above, please comment, I would welcome any feedback in order to improve and maximise my AWA score.
Thanks in advance!
I have just finished writing my first AWA Essay and looking for feedback.
Admittedly the model answer has been published however I thought it be best to gain tailored feedback to my actual response.
I planned and wrote the essay in 30 mins (test conditions).
5 mins planning
20 mins writing
5 mins proofreading
Question: "Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Answer:
The Author believes that making the workplace a safer environment will lead to cost reductions through reduced payroll and wage expenditures by limiting associated risks to physical injury to employees while they conduct their daily job responsibilities. This conclusion is deeply flawed for numerous reasons, including but not limited to: lack of costing information regarding implementation of safety procedures, lack of data regarding labour supply and ability to attract talent and lastly, whether new safety procedures will actually increase the safety of the work environment.
Firstly, the author fails to provide any useful data to make a useful cost analysis to allow the audience to create a useful analysis. Example, if the safety procedures cost £20,000,000 to design and implement, but only help reduce wages and payroll expenses by £20,000, then implementing such safety procedures will not be a beneficial course of action, as cost saving will take many years to be realised. Conversely if safety procedures are cheap to implement costing £5,000 and saving over £5,000,000 in payroll and wage expenses providing improved safety can be a clear way to realise such reductions in expenses. Therefore it is paramount for the author to provide this information to strengthen both the assumption and the conclusion.
Secondly, the author provides no information about labour market supply, wages may be high in order to attract talented employees. Example, if safety is implemented at extra costs and salaries and wages reduced, certain companies may find it difficult to attract new employees if the supply of labour is not sufficient. Therefore, improving safety may just lead to extra costs as high wages and payroll expenses will need to be retained to attract the limited talent within the labour market. Conversely if enough labour was available within the labour market, wages could be reduced and safety increase simultaneously to ensure new employees are attracted and current employees retained (better working conditions). This information would strengthen both the assumptions of the author and their conclusions.
Thirdly, the author provides no information about current safety within companies, the phrase 'make the workplace safer' is very vague, with many companies unable to make their workplaces safer due to the nature of the industry or job, a classic example is oil drilling using oil rigs in the North Atlantic ocean, there is a limit to how safe risk environments can be made, without wasting money. Furthermore, many companies and industries have safety audits ensuring that employees are protected adequately for their roles and responsibilities, therefore the author should provide information and examples to improve clarity to their assumption as to whether this is achievable or even necessary. The author could correct this through providing statistics on the number of accidents in the workplace within different industries to help analyses whether implementing improved safety is at all necessary or impactful to help reduce wages and payroll expenditure.
Lastly, providing all the aforementioned information to the reader would strengthen the authors conclusion as to whether improving safety would help reduce payroll expenses and wages, however in the arguments current form the assumptions and conclusions are extremely weak and inconclusive.
My answer is above, please comment, I would welcome any feedback in order to improve and maximise my AWA score.
Thanks in advance!
Moderators:
188 posts
