AWA Score: 4 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 2/5
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 Luckpkbiet wrote:
Q: Prompt: “Farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year have seen their crop yields decline. Many of these farmers feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point, given the money that they invested in organic farming supplies and equipment. But their investments will be relatively minor compared to the losses from continued lower crop yields. Organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming rather than persist in an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Essay Format
The author debates that farmers who have switched to organic farming last year from the conventional synthetic farming found the lower crop yield. He has also stressed that even though the farmers had invested for organic farming equipment and technology, they should still consider switching back to synthetic farming else they will perish as organic farming was completely motivated by environmentalist rather economist. Stated in such a way, the author has failed to look what lies on the other end of the river. Just by merely comparing the economic factors i.e. profitability he has misjudged the environmental, health and socio-political concerns which is a leap of faith without clear outcomes.
First, the author has compared the yield results of the farmers who have switched from synthetic farming to organic farming. This is true, but the author has failed to consider the fact that natural nutrients of soil takes at least 2 to 3 year to compensate back to normal level. This type of education of advantages and disadvantages are well discussed in advance with the prospect farmers. Also organic farming is not only safe for soil, but plant also grow themselves in natural regions. Presenteded in such a way, the author has failed to understand that switching over from synthetic to natural farming is a time taking process and cannot be attained overnight.
Second, the author is also in the view that despite of bearing losses in adopting technologies and equipments for organic farming, still the farmers should switch back to synthetic farming considering the yields which may impact losses of farmers. Stated in such a way, still the author has failed to do research in this field. Any organic farming potentially needs 2 to 3 years to attain natural level of soil nutrients for a healthy yield. Also organic farming is subsidised by government and minimum sale price of organic items are way ahead of synthetic products. Further to this the public demand for the organic food items are exponentially higher than produce of synthetic farming especially in urban culture. So author approach is not at all justified.
Third, the author has stressed on the fact that financially it is unwise to spend on organic farming considering the losses the farmer can incur initially. This again is a wrong approach to look at things. Initially switching from synthetic to organic can be uneconomic, but considering the demand especially in urban markets, incentives by government and MSP in commodity market, it has a much wider effect down 2 to 3 years. So, the author has failed to look aggressively in economic facts and without considering the facts have come to a vague decision.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. The author needed to assimilate the facts and derive proper conclusion instead of jumping on judgement. Unless the matter would have been presented in a more judicious manner, any decision would be ignorant and the topic remains open for debate.