Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
|
|
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.
30 Aug 2020, 03:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Dear Daagh
Kindly provide feedback on the essay that I have done as part of my GMAT preparation
Prompt:
"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."
My Essasy
The argument above assumes that by making workplace safer, it indirectly reduces physical injury and by doing som it results in a reduction in payroll expenses, thus benefitting companies financially. The argument makes a generalization that most companies have certain workplace injury, and it also makes a direct correlation between safer workplace to a reduction of wages or payroll expenses. This in reality may not always be the case. Furthermore, making a workplace safer, whilst generally is encouraged, may not always result in financial benefits. Hence the argument is flawed in which it does not evaluate other relevant factors.
First, the argument is readily assumed that most companies have risk of physical injury occurring on the job that impact their employees. This may not always be the case. Some companies’ activities that require higher level of physical work such as construction work and oil and gas exploration for example, does involve a higher level of risk. Deskbound work, on the other hand, whilst, may result in certain physical injuries, tends to be minor and only occurs after a prolonged period of time. Hence, the author generalizes the fact that most companies agree to risk of physical injury impose by their activities, when it may not be the case.
Second, assuming that this applies to company in which risk of physical injury is high, it is not always the case that measures implemented to reduce such physical injury would result in a reduction of wages. For example, there may be the case that in certain countries, there is a minimum wage established either directly through its Labour Union or indirectly by way of having competitive labor market within a certain industry. It could also be the case that certain activities can only be performed by a niche group of specialized workers, say in the field of oil and gas OR nuclear energy, making it harder to make the case for lower wage given these firms have limited specialists that they can pick. Hence, the higher wage demand is influenced, partially by regulation and at the same time by the labor market, and not by occupaton's injusry risk. And in this case, lowering the injury risk may not reduce the wage directly.
Third, creating a safer workplace may not be financially sensible at least in the form of money to be saved. The company may need to invest, at least initially, and rejig some of its already in-place processes to impose the safety measure. In addition, educating employees and making sure they behave in a safety manner may require additional training and supervision. All of these will require additional financial expenses. That said, it may not be totally wrong that there may be non monetary financial benefits by creater a workplace safer. As we see that generally workers prefer companies that take care of their employees, we can say that a safer workplace will hopefully result in a less physical injury and will help to make sure work is done efficiently and with workers able to be present at work and feel safer. Presumably workers are also likely to stay with the companies long term, hence in the long run companies will benefits intangibly but may not be directly financially sensible.
Hence, the argument’s assumption that most companies can readily reduce their payroll expenses and save money by implementing safer workplace is flawed. The author has made assumptions that most workplace involve certain physical injury, when clearly all not the same, assumed wage can be lowered down just by reducing risk of physical injury and assumed that safer workplace is always financially sensible or save money. Whilst some benefits may be there, these assumptions may need to be evaluated in a wider perspective and specifically on a case by case basis.
Thanks!
Kindly provide feedback on the essay that I have done as part of my GMAT preparation
Prompt:
"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."
My Essasy
The argument above assumes that by making workplace safer, it indirectly reduces physical injury and by doing som it results in a reduction in payroll expenses, thus benefitting companies financially. The argument makes a generalization that most companies have certain workplace injury, and it also makes a direct correlation between safer workplace to a reduction of wages or payroll expenses. This in reality may not always be the case. Furthermore, making a workplace safer, whilst generally is encouraged, may not always result in financial benefits. Hence the argument is flawed in which it does not evaluate other relevant factors.
First, the argument is readily assumed that most companies have risk of physical injury occurring on the job that impact their employees. This may not always be the case. Some companies’ activities that require higher level of physical work such as construction work and oil and gas exploration for example, does involve a higher level of risk. Deskbound work, on the other hand, whilst, may result in certain physical injuries, tends to be minor and only occurs after a prolonged period of time. Hence, the author generalizes the fact that most companies agree to risk of physical injury impose by their activities, when it may not be the case.
Second, assuming that this applies to company in which risk of physical injury is high, it is not always the case that measures implemented to reduce such physical injury would result in a reduction of wages. For example, there may be the case that in certain countries, there is a minimum wage established either directly through its Labour Union or indirectly by way of having competitive labor market within a certain industry. It could also be the case that certain activities can only be performed by a niche group of specialized workers, say in the field of oil and gas OR nuclear energy, making it harder to make the case for lower wage given these firms have limited specialists that they can pick. Hence, the higher wage demand is influenced, partially by regulation and at the same time by the labor market, and not by occupaton's injusry risk. And in this case, lowering the injury risk may not reduce the wage directly.
Third, creating a safer workplace may not be financially sensible at least in the form of money to be saved. The company may need to invest, at least initially, and rejig some of its already in-place processes to impose the safety measure. In addition, educating employees and making sure they behave in a safety manner may require additional training and supervision. All of these will require additional financial expenses. That said, it may not be totally wrong that there may be non monetary financial benefits by creater a workplace safer. As we see that generally workers prefer companies that take care of their employees, we can say that a safer workplace will hopefully result in a less physical injury and will help to make sure work is done efficiently and with workers able to be present at work and feel safer. Presumably workers are also likely to stay with the companies long term, hence in the long run companies will benefits intangibly but may not be directly financially sensible.
Hence, the argument’s assumption that most companies can readily reduce their payroll expenses and save money by implementing safer workplace is flawed. The author has made assumptions that most workplace involve certain physical injury, when clearly all not the same, assumed wage can be lowered down just by reducing risk of physical injury and assumed that safer workplace is always financially sensible or save money. Whilst some benefits may be there, these assumptions may need to be evaluated in a wider perspective and specifically on a case by case basis.
Thanks!
Moderators:
