mehtaro wrote:
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”
The author concludes that it would recommend the use of identification badges to all of its future clients. The author’s line of reasoning is that the current lists of clients, 10 companies, have had no theft over the past six years. The reason for that is because they have implemented a policy such that each employee needs to wear a badge while at work. The author’s reasoning is unconvincing and fails to explain two critical areas.
To begin with, the author assumes that each employee within the ten companies is ethical and abides by the law. What if, there are employees who are not ethical and use the badge of others to enter work or access confidential areas at work. This would lead to a serious problem since the person accessing those areas would be recognized as authorized personnel in the system whereas in reality the person using it is not.
This leads to the second issue, which is verification of identification before entering the work. The author assumes that the companies have a process in place whereby each employee is being verified against their identification badge before entering the workplace. What if there is no process in place. This would lead to strangers entering the building with stolen/misplaced badges and going unrecognized.
To conclude, this argument has serious flaws that need to be addressed. To strengthen this argument, the author will need to provide additional evidence to prove that employees are ethical or that there is a process in place to verify the identification badge. A system monitor log showing the ins and outs of people would also help to analyze the unusual trends if any. Without additional evidence, the argument remains unconvincing.
2
Hi mehtaro,
This is a good first effort, with solid writing and well-done organization. However, you misunderstood the assignment, and that means your essay is fundamentally unsatisfactory to the GMAT graders.
I didn't understand the point in your second paragraph. You appear to be making several assumptions yourself--why and how would these IDs allow employees to enter confidential areas? Also, you don't actually tie ethics into the prompt. The stimulus you are responding to is solely concerned with reducing theft--who cares whether the employees are refusing to steal out of ethics or out of inconvenience!
Your second paragraph is closer to the mark--what do IDs actually do? But the author isn't making any of the assumptions you attribute to him. The author is solely assuming that IDs contribute to the low rates of theft. None of the things you bring up here are actually assumptions. You're putting words and ideas into the author's mouth.
I recommend spending time practicing CR questions. The more time you spend there, the better you will be at properly identifying gaps between the conclusion and the evidence, and the more clearly you will be able to express those gaps as assumptions, strengtheners, and weakeners.
Good luck!
close
23 Jul 2012, 18:51
