AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 4/5
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: 4.5/5
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 LuckSniperline wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have my GMAT exam in 5 days and just started preparing for the AWA section. This is my first essay under the 30 minute time constraint on the official GMAT Test 5.
Prompt:
"Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health."
My answer:
The argument claims that the studies of a certain laboratory show that the water from the Saluda Natural Spring is healthy since it doesn’t contain any bacteria and has the several vital minerals. It states that the people from the town where this water is packaged are less likely to be admitted to hospitals and that even though the water is expensive, the people from the town should drink it for long-term health benefits. Stated this way, the argument makes several leaps of faith and presents a distorted view of the situation. It also omits out several key factors based on which the argument could be better evaluated. Hence, the argument is weak and can be considered flawed.
Firstly, the argument states that the people from the town where the water is packaged are hospitalized less frequently that the national average. The statement is a stretch since it fails to exhibit that the healthy water itself is the sole factor for less hospitalization. For instance, maybe the people in the area eat healthy food and undertake healthy practices such as walking, exercising, etc. Clearly, if that is the case then we cannot conclude that the people are in the pink of health just because of the superior water quality. If the author indicated that the environmental quality is poor or that the people have an unhealthy lifestyle, then we could take his word with more confidence.
Secondly, the author expects most people to drink the Spring water even though it is more expensive. This again is a weak and unsupported claim which does not take certain factors into consideration. For example, it might be possible that a major section of the population living in this town is not well off and barely have enough money for survival. If this were true, then most people would be more than content with the tap water they currently use since the money that the author expects them to spend on the premium Spring water could be used by the for other necessities. If the argument provided any insight into the financial situation of the people living in the town, then this argument would be better supported.
Finally, the argument takes the word of a certain laboratory that has examined the water samples from the spring as conclusive. Nothing has been presented about the validity of the results or the reputation of the laboratory itself. What if the laboratory uses outdated techniques to examine water samples which would lead to unreliable results? Also, what if the tap water currently used by the people has certain minerals which the spring water doesn’t contain and are essential for health? Without a convincing answer to these questions, the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be clearly strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts pertaining to the factors discussed. To assess the merits of the situation presented, it is essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. In this case it is the financial situation of the people living in the town and their lifestyle. Without this information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I have used the ChineseBurned (absolute legend) approach for writing this essay and would really appreciate it if someone could evaluate the same. Thank you.