Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Posts: 31
Given Kudos: 40
Location: Germany
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
GPA: 3.3
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
One AWA a day! Day 7/11 - Please review my essay!
[#permalink]
13 May 2017, 00:03
My GMAT exam is on Thursday the 18th and to exercise the AWA I try to write one essay per day!
I am trying to improve my writing and I would appreciate your feedback very much!
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 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.
The argument states that last year a specific governmental department approved a code of ethics for its business partners after specific violations took place. All companies that work with the department are asked to comply to the code and most companies agreed to do so. Since there is a functioning ethics code in place, there is no need for a legal regulation or additional enforcement mechanisms.
At first glance, this argument may seem somewhat convincing, though closer examination reveals lack of evidence, ill-founded assumptions and poor reasoning. For example, the argument assumes the effectiveness of the code without providing further evidence. Additionally, some companies clearly do not commit to the code. And finally, an independent body of oversight may be required even if the code is effective. Consequently, this argument is rather weak, dubious and unconvincing.
First, the argument relies on the assumption that because the code is relevant to the business environment and was approved recently, it is effective in preventing ethics conflicts. On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that relevance, concreteness and actuality is required for an effective code. On the other hand, these characteristics are necessary pre-conditions, not proof of its effectiveness. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that the code can be effective. To allow for a better evaluation of the argument, the author needs to provide more supporting evidence for his belief.
Second, the argument states that vitually all companies have agreed to follow the code. However, just one misstep by a single corporation can be a serious violation of ethics. Also if the companies agreed to follow the code, how is it ensured that they actually do so? Since there was a violation year, what changes have been made to ensure that this will not happen again? Without convincing answers to these questions, this seems more like a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument could be considerably strengthened if it explained how the ethics compliance is ensured besides a simple agreement to a code.
Third, the argument assumes that the use of the code of ethics makes stronger ethics regulations or stronger enforcement mechanisms unnecessary. Yet, there are many examples where independent oversight was necessary to prevent a moral dilemma. To illustrate, consider Volkswagen and the diesel scandal. Even though a code of conduct was in place, the engineers of Volkswagen manipulated the software of the car in order to show reduced emissions during testing compared to realistic driving. This manipulation took place under the eye of the leadership who should have been responsible for ensuring the application of the code of conduct. However, there was no independent body to oversee the compliance. Consequently, the author fails to make a convincing case for his conclusion. To give the argument more credibility, the author must clearly state why he believes why a independent oversight is not necessary.
In conclusion, the argument is not completely well-reasoned as it stands. To make a more convincing case, the author should prove more information on what the contents of the ethics code are and how exactly compliance to the code is ensured.