I would really appreciate some feed back on my AWA
[#permalink]
26 Jul 2016, 03:01
Hi Guys its my first post on the forum so bear with me.
Little bit about myself I'm a Kuwaiti studying for my GMAT which I take for the first time in two weeks and have been studying while working for about 4 months now.
Have done a few AWA practices but bought the official GMAT Write yesterday and tried one of their essays this morning which was graded with a 6 on all four categories. It's the first AWA I do that has been graded by a computer system so I am a bit unsure of wether it was actually worthy of a 6 on all four categories and thus wether my writing is where it needs to be for the exam. I would really appreciate any feedback you guys could give on this essay and wether or not you think the marking on the GMAT write system is accurate or not. Thanks
PS I used chinesburned post on the forum about tips on how to get a 6.0
The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of research and development at Ready-to-Ware, a software engineering firm.
The package of benefits and incentives that Ready-to-Ware offers to professional staff is too costly. Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation. Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. To become more profitable again, Ready-to-Ware should, therefore, offer the reduced benefits package that was in place two years ago and use the savings to fund our current research and development initiatives.
ESSAY
The argument claims that the inroduction two years ago of a new and costly package of benefits and incentives has resulted in a decline in quarterly profits and has failed to attract sufficient high-quality professional staff. Hence it states that Ready-to-Ware should scrap the new package and go back to the original package it offered to years ago in a bid to return to profitability. Stated in this way the argument makes assumptions without providing the necessary evidence to back them up. As the result the argument's line of reasoning is flawed and its comes across as weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument assumes that the decline in quarterly profits is solely down to the introduction of the new package of benefits. What it fails to present here however is any evidence highlighting the exact effect of the new package on profits. For example, if the author had shown how as a result of the new package less money has been spent on product development which has subsequently resutled in a decline in profits, his argument would have been much stronger. In addition, the argument fails to take into account the other factors that might have played a part in reducing profits. For instance, Ready-to-Ware might have not developed its products at the same rate as its direct competitors which resulted in a shift of customers away from Redy-to-Ware. If this was the case, then the director's claim would be weakened and it would not hold as a logically coherent argument.
Secondly, the author then goes on to mention the failure of the packge to recruit a significant number of professional staff. Thus making the assumption that a good benefits package is not attractive to potential employees, and is therefore a waste of money that could otherwise be spent on research and development. What the author fails to bear in mind here is the exact benefits included in the package. The argument very vaguely states that the package is 'costly', giving the reader the impression that it must be attractive to potential employees. However what it might actually include in terms of incentives might not be on a par with the packages offered by its competitors. For example, the package offered by Ready-to-Ware might not include dental insurance, something that the specific professionals it is hoping to attract hold in high regard. In addition, the argument continues to use more vague vocabulary when it discusses the 'marginal' success in recruiting which resulted from the new package. The term marginal fails to portray the exact effect of the package. Had the author provided more concrete numerical evidence regarding the percentage increase in recruting professional staff since the implementation of the package two years ago, it would have given the argument a stronger foundation upon which to make its assumptions. The lack of any such evidence makes the claims made by the author weak and unconvincing.
Finally, the author seems to have a clear bias in favour of dedicating more funds to the research and development team. As the director of the department of research, it would be fair to assume that he would be someone in favour of utilising data and evidence to back up claims, something he fails to do repeatedly in the argument above. In conclusion, the claims made by the argument are based on flawed assumptions that lack the evidence required to support them. The author fails to take into account important factors that might have resulted in both the decrease in profits and the suggested low recruitement of professional staff, thus resulting in a weak and unconvincing argument.
Thanks again guys