Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!
08 Feb 2022, 12:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Head of a governmental department argued against the need of stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanism to ensure ethical behaviour of companies doing business with concerned department. In order to bolster its claim, argument states that this department already have a code of ethics which all companies have agreed to follow and that the code is relevant to current business environment. However, for numerous reasons discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the argument offers dubious support for its conclusion.
First, argument assumes that companies that have virtually agreed to abide by the code are going to follow it. This is an invalid assumption. In order to acquire business, companies agree to all terms and conditions of contract. However, once the deal is struck, companies, in absence of any legal penalties, may not conform to all previously agreed terms because of the opportunity cost associated with adherence to such terms. Since most of the companies think in terms of monetary benefits, stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms are absolutely necessary to ensure ethical behaviour by companies. Hence, the argument's conclusion is not valid.
Second, argument fails to provide any justification for assuming that adopting a code of ethics relatable to current business environment will ensure ethical behaviour of companies. How does inclusion of all cases of violation up until last year precludes the possibility that these violations will happen again. In order to ensure that these violations will not occur again, stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms are indispensable.
Third, argument ignores that code of ethics, once formed, remains valid for a certain period of time, and, therefore, it becomes pertinent to take into account any potential violation. In the absence of such potential violation in code of ethics, companies may employ previously untried unethical methods with governmental department and also remain immune to any charges of unethical behaviour. In such scenario, even though companies are in full compliance to current code of ethics, they are still engaged in unethical behaviour. Hence, it is merely an overstatement that adopting a code of ethics relevant to current business environment will ensure that companies will not indulge in unethical behaviour.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Head of department fails to convey any compelling reason against the requirement of stronger ethics regulation and stronger enforcement mechanism.
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Head of a governmental department argued against the need of stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanism to ensure ethical behaviour of companies doing business with concerned department. In order to bolster its claim, argument states that this department already have a code of ethics which all companies have agreed to follow and that the code is relevant to current business environment. However, for numerous reasons discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the argument offers dubious support for its conclusion.
First, argument assumes that companies that have virtually agreed to abide by the code are going to follow it. This is an invalid assumption. In order to acquire business, companies agree to all terms and conditions of contract. However, once the deal is struck, companies, in absence of any legal penalties, may not conform to all previously agreed terms because of the opportunity cost associated with adherence to such terms. Since most of the companies think in terms of monetary benefits, stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms are absolutely necessary to ensure ethical behaviour by companies. Hence, the argument's conclusion is not valid.
Second, argument fails to provide any justification for assuming that adopting a code of ethics relatable to current business environment will ensure ethical behaviour of companies. How does inclusion of all cases of violation up until last year precludes the possibility that these violations will happen again. In order to ensure that these violations will not occur again, stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms are indispensable.
Third, argument ignores that code of ethics, once formed, remains valid for a certain period of time, and, therefore, it becomes pertinent to take into account any potential violation. In the absence of such potential violation in code of ethics, companies may employ previously untried unethical methods with governmental department and also remain immune to any charges of unethical behaviour. In such scenario, even though companies are in full compliance to current code of ethics, they are still engaged in unethical behaviour. Hence, it is merely an overstatement that adopting a code of ethics relevant to current business environment will ensure that companies will not indulge in unethical behaviour.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Head of department fails to convey any compelling reason against the requirement of stronger ethics regulation and stronger enforcement mechanism.
09 Feb 2022, 10:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
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: 5/5
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!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
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: 5/5
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 Luck
manpreet0511
The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Head of a governmental department argued against the need of stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanism to ensure ethical behaviour of companies doing business with concerned department. In order to bolster its claim, argument states that this department already have a code of ethics which all companies have agreed to follow and that the code is relevant to current business environment. However, for numerous reasons discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the argument offers dubious support for its conclusion.
First, argument assumes that companies that have virtually agreed to abide by the code are going to follow it. This is an invalid assumption. In order to acquire business, companies agree to all terms and conditions of contract. However, once the deal is struck, companies, in absence of any legal penalties, may not conform to all previously agreed terms because of the opportunity cost associated with adherence to such terms. Since most of the companies think in terms of monetary benefits, stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms are absolutely necessary to ensure ethical behaviour by companies. Hence, the argument's conclusion is not valid.
Second, argument fails to provide any justification for assuming that adopting a code of ethics relatable to current business environment will ensure ethical behaviour of companies. How does inclusion of all cases of violation up until last year precludes the possibility that these violations will happen again. In order to ensure that these violations will not occur again, stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms are indispensable.
Third, argument ignores that code of ethics, once formed, remains valid for a certain period of time, and, therefore, it becomes pertinent to take into account any potential violation. In the absence of such potential violation in code of ethics, companies may employ previously untried unethical methods with governmental department and also remain immune to any charges of unethical behaviour. In such scenario, even though companies are in full compliance to current code of ethics, they are still engaged in unethical behaviour. Hence, it is merely an overstatement that adopting a code of ethics relevant to current business environment will ensure that companies will not indulge in unethical behaviour.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Head of department fails to convey any compelling reason against the requirement of stronger ethics regulation and stronger enforcement mechanism.
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Head of a governmental department argued against the need of stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanism to ensure ethical behaviour of companies doing business with concerned department. In order to bolster its claim, argument states that this department already have a code of ethics which all companies have agreed to follow and that the code is relevant to current business environment. However, for numerous reasons discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the argument offers dubious support for its conclusion.
First, argument assumes that companies that have virtually agreed to abide by the code are going to follow it. This is an invalid assumption. In order to acquire business, companies agree to all terms and conditions of contract. However, once the deal is struck, companies, in absence of any legal penalties, may not conform to all previously agreed terms because of the opportunity cost associated with adherence to such terms. Since most of the companies think in terms of monetary benefits, stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms are absolutely necessary to ensure ethical behaviour by companies. Hence, the argument's conclusion is not valid.
Second, argument fails to provide any justification for assuming that adopting a code of ethics relatable to current business environment will ensure ethical behaviour of companies. How does inclusion of all cases of violation up until last year precludes the possibility that these violations will happen again. In order to ensure that these violations will not occur again, stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms are indispensable.
Third, argument ignores that code of ethics, once formed, remains valid for a certain period of time, and, therefore, it becomes pertinent to take into account any potential violation. In the absence of such potential violation in code of ethics, companies may employ previously untried unethical methods with governmental department and also remain immune to any charges of unethical behaviour. In such scenario, even though companies are in full compliance to current code of ethics, they are still engaged in unethical behaviour. Hence, it is merely an overstatement that adopting a code of ethics relevant to current business environment will ensure that companies will not indulge in unethical behaviour.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Head of department fails to convey any compelling reason against the requirement of stronger ethics regulation and stronger enforcement mechanism.
Moderators:
