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
11 Feb 2018, 20:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello!
I am in the beginning of my GMAT journey and just did my first AWA. This was done all within the 30-minute time limit -- not post-editing before posting it here. Please let me know your thoughts. If you are kind enough to give feedback, and also have an essay posted in the forum you would like feedback on, please leave the link and I would be happy to return the favor.
Prompt:
Stronger laws are need to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold my imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry.
Response:
The argument by the author that without stronger laws to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold, manufacturing jobs will take a loss is unfounded. The author does not clearly define what a types of “strong laws” will be in place to prevent the stated negative outcomes from happening. There is no evidence to imply that home-security products are in need of laws that protect them from being copied and sold. Lastly, the author makes a huge leap, with no evidence, to predict that the lack of laws will affect the market so badly that an entire sector of jobs will be negatively impacted.
The author claims that “stronger laws are need.” However, he goes into no detail about what exactly these stronger laws are. We have no way of knowing if laws exist already and to what degree they need to be strengthened – writing a completely new set of laws governing home-security systems could be very different from adding a few amendments to a law already in existence. Additionally, the author fails to tell us why the laws are needed. We know that they are needed to prevent systems for being copied and sold, but we don’t know if this is a prevalent issue in the home-security sector. Without this, we really don’t know if the laws are actually vital or if the author just thinks they could be helpful.
The argument could be made stronger if the author stated that, for example, home-security systems have recently been a copied and sold in mass quantities to consumer by counterfeit companies. This, then, has lead to these unlawful companies scamming consumers and gaining a profit while verified home-security companies are suffering from low sales and thus, laying off employees.
Even with the background knowledge of the laws, the argument that this one sector will have a sweeping affect on the entire manufacturing industry is a stretch. We have no evidence that the home-security sector is a majority of manufacturing job. If we were told that the manufacturing sector is made up of, for example, 75% home-security makers, we may have some reason to believe that lack of jobs in this specific area would cause the industry to take a hit – but we have no reason to believe there is a correlation between these laws and jobs.
This argument lacks strong examples of what it is fighting for, stronger laws, and also any direct evidence that what it implies will happen, loss of jobs, will actually happen. Together, this make this argument weak and unfounded.
I am in the beginning of my GMAT journey and just did my first AWA. This was done all within the 30-minute time limit -- not post-editing before posting it here. Please let me know your thoughts. If you are kind enough to give feedback, and also have an essay posted in the forum you would like feedback on, please leave the link and I would be happy to return the favor.
Prompt:
Stronger laws are need to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold my imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry.
Response:
The argument by the author that without stronger laws to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold, manufacturing jobs will take a loss is unfounded. The author does not clearly define what a types of “strong laws” will be in place to prevent the stated negative outcomes from happening. There is no evidence to imply that home-security products are in need of laws that protect them from being copied and sold. Lastly, the author makes a huge leap, with no evidence, to predict that the lack of laws will affect the market so badly that an entire sector of jobs will be negatively impacted.
The author claims that “stronger laws are need.” However, he goes into no detail about what exactly these stronger laws are. We have no way of knowing if laws exist already and to what degree they need to be strengthened – writing a completely new set of laws governing home-security systems could be very different from adding a few amendments to a law already in existence. Additionally, the author fails to tell us why the laws are needed. We know that they are needed to prevent systems for being copied and sold, but we don’t know if this is a prevalent issue in the home-security sector. Without this, we really don’t know if the laws are actually vital or if the author just thinks they could be helpful.
The argument could be made stronger if the author stated that, for example, home-security systems have recently been a copied and sold in mass quantities to consumer by counterfeit companies. This, then, has lead to these unlawful companies scamming consumers and gaining a profit while verified home-security companies are suffering from low sales and thus, laying off employees.
Even with the background knowledge of the laws, the argument that this one sector will have a sweeping affect on the entire manufacturing industry is a stretch. We have no evidence that the home-security sector is a majority of manufacturing job. If we were told that the manufacturing sector is made up of, for example, 75% home-security makers, we may have some reason to believe that lack of jobs in this specific area would cause the industry to take a hit – but we have no reason to believe there is a correlation between these laws and jobs.
This argument lacks strong examples of what it is fighting for, stronger laws, and also any direct evidence that what it implies will happen, loss of jobs, will actually happen. Together, this make this argument weak and unfounded.
Moderators:
188 posts
