GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Aug 2018, 17:54


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.

for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance


we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.


Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

My attempt using ChineseBurned template

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2017
Posts: 27
My attempt using ChineseBurned template  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2017, 10:32

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:

"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."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion.

You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

My attempt using ChineseBurned template:

The argument claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer so they then could reduce their payroll expenses and save money. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that making the workplace safer would cost less than paying employees higher wages. This statement is a stretch because there are enormous costs that come with improving safety. For example, training for employees to work in unsafe conditions. Also, employees who are better trained or certified tend to have higher earning power because they are specialized for specific harsh work environments. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that all risk would be eliminated by my making the workplace safer.

Second, the argument claims that anyone who works in dangerous environment is paid more. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between ratio risk and wages being the same across all companies and all job roles. To illustrate, a fairly risky job is moving furniture, a job that can wear out an employees back and cause back injuries. The physical labor still creates significant risk, but these jobs are not highly paid. If the argument had provided evidence that all companies paid more for working in a role that had higher risk for physical injury, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, employers should make the workplace as safe as possible regardless of impact to payroll expenses. This is because when an accident happens, work stops and an investigation occurs. This means that there is an interruption in productivity, and the downtime could cost a lot in lost revenue. Also, how would simply paying employees more create a safer workplace and avoid safety issues? Without convincing answers to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thought rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain claim, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the factors and to present evidence.
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 104
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 760 Q51 V41
GPA: 3.2
Re: My attempt using ChineseBurned template  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2017, 09:53
Overall, a really good passage, and the template has been well applied. IMO, at the very least, it deserves a 5, if not better.
I do have some suggestions as following:
"they could then"
assumptions 'for' which
The ending of the second passage is not in sync with the start for the same passage. The passage begins with the focus on cost comparison, but ends with a focus on risk elimination.
Avoid the word 'being' in the second passage.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you could rate my essay at: ... 37821.html

How ZenYogi got from 640 to 760

Trust yourself, you must

Your Kudos, I appreciate

Re: My attempt using ChineseBurned template &nbs [#permalink] 09 Apr 2017, 09:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

My attempt using ChineseBurned template

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.