AWA response - assessment

Hello GMAT Experts! I wrote a response to the attached AWA Question prompt. The following is the essay that I typed in precisely 29 minutes. Please do let me have a score / grade based on the assessment. I look forward to your response.



The argument states a series of measures proposed to be implemented at the forthcoming School Fair this year with the primary target of raising the highest amount of money for the supplemental school programs. The author’s proposal includes much larger and more thrilling rides as compared to that of the previous years’, the proposal is supported by the addition of a ferris wheel twice as tall as last year’s ferris wheel among other measures. The efficacy of proposal in raising highest amount of funds through the proposed changes in the annual fund raising event relies on several unsupported assumptions and fails to be convincing. The argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the assumption on the part of the author that, including larger and thrilling rides at the fair and thereby making the fair more attractive to raise the entrance charges reveals an example of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The higher entrance charges for the fair, could discourage enthusiasts from re-appearing at the fair again this year, and thereby lead to a severe decline in the footfall as well as the revenues expected from the event. The author could have presented a much more sound reasoning by citing the factual details of budget deficit as well as the range of amounts raised by the School in its fund raising drives over the previous years’. The absence of the above evidence fails to strengthen the argument.

Secondly, it could be possible that the funds required to be invested in the supplemental school programs may be sufficiently larger than the revenue targeted from the inflated ticket prices at the school fair. The argument could be substantiated by citing the lack of any viable alternatives to achieve the fund raising goals of the school or the absence of any other modes of financing. The presence of facts proving the in-sufficiency of the presently available means of funding as well as the sufficiency of the school’s fair to meet or achieve the funding target, would have made the choice of using the proceeds from the schools fair sound convincing and acceptable.

Lastly, the suggested measure of raising the amount of rewards by the game vendors and showcasing a variety of upscale international dishes, doesn’t help justify author’s expectations of higher earnings from the commissions on vendors’ revenues. The revenue from the fair may also decline as against the predicted results, owing to an increase in the costs of food items at the fair, and also in part due to the rise in the fee of entrance tickets. The reasoning could have been more logical by citing the lack of positive feedback from the participants from the previous years’ fair about the food and the award money on the prizes won in the games at the fair.

Without the presence of the above mentioned factors, the argument is considerably weak and fails to be convincing. In order to evaluate the merits of a decision, it is important to have full knowledge of the various factors involved. Without all the relevant facts, the argument remains open to debate.