The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about man

The word "evidence" typically refers to the entire body of evidence, regardless of whether that body of evidence consists of one single thing or various distinct things. For example:

"The evidence against Tim was very strong."

This might refer to one single piece of evidence that is very strong. Or to several pieces of evidence that, collectively, form a strong body of evidence.

The word "evidences" might be okay in certain technical usages, but generally speaking "evidence" is considered uncountable and gets a singular verb.

As for your second question, you probably want to omit the "of a" altogether and go with either:

"...the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence." Or,
"...the claim is wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence."

Of course, if you're talking about AWA and not SC, that sort of distinction won't make a ton of difference!

Thanks a lot for clarifying both of my questions!

This is such a great post to get a high score on the AWA, people. A suggestion would be to actually practice doing a few AWAs using the template - don't simply memorize it and wing it on the actual exam. I know it can feel annoying but practicing may help you go into auto-pilot mode on the day when the section pops up.

All the best

Thanks, I modified the content to fit my writing style and got 6 in AWA with minimal preparation.

Thanks for the help

Can I use the concepts from 'errors of reasoning' in CR questions to attack AWA argument? Would it help if I look at the AWA stimulus through the CR 'error of reasoning' lens?

If anyone is wondering if this still works, I'd say just 1 thing. I'm a non-native speaker. Improved my score from 4 to 5 with just 2-3 hrs of glancing through this epic post. If I had followed it to the T, I would have easily scored 6.
Thanks mate

Totally. But you don’t really need to worry too much about content and ideas. Nobody’s evaluating how smart your reasoning is. You could write down completely average in mediocre points and still get a fantastic score.

Posted from my mobile device

thank you so much!! Memorized the template and got a 6

chineseburned

I found the sample essay in this post really difficult. The response drew parallel from businesses such as Formula1 racing and movie theatre rating system which are self-regulated. However, I was not aware about this, which makes it very difficult to give such examples during the test. How can we improve on such example-giving skills?

Further, the second flaw para states that violation fees for bad electronic game ratings are nominal. However, the argument just says that nominal fee is levied for violation of the system. For people like me, it is nearly impossible to think of equating violation of system with bad ratings. I have come across few more essays which states such kind of connections in their responses, which are very difficult to think of. Could you provide any guidelines for this to make our essay stronger?

Moreover, I was not able to think of mentioning good flaws as was mentioned in model answer. So, I thought that one of the flaws could be that the author could have mentioned cause of violation of the system. In the model essay answer in OG 2019, they have mentioned cause of plane collisions as one of the flaws. How strong is this reasoning of flaw and can that be used in many essays if we are unable to think much regarding what flaws to write?

Look at my guide. Simply will show you how to write without any gimmick or trick that maybe will not work.

No-nonsense

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-gmatclub ... 36251.html

My AWA scores in GMAT
4.0 (No knowledge of this post)
5.0 (Customary glance)
6.0 (After memorizing this epic post)
Thanks dude. It still works in 2022

Kindly rate my essay and point out the mistakes. Also guide me on how to make it better.

q-
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.

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.




Ans.

The common notion that the workers are apathetic toward the management issues seems bit reasonable. Though a recent survey indicated otherwise. According to the survey, questionnaires given to approximately 1200 workers, out of which 79 % of them shown interest in the subjects related to corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits program. In quick glance this survey results seems to put forward this idea that workers are really concerned about the management issues and want to be part of it but this is not the real picture.

First of all, the data presented by the survey is limited and inefficient. Only one survey can not determine the interest of all the workers. There must be other surveys to be conducted to establish the idea of workers interest in the management areas. Moreover, the survey is conducted on only 1200 workers, the number seems to be very less. For instance, there was a survey conducted in the year 2000 , related to working hours, in which it was indicated that less working hours generate more productivity. In this survey, the participants were only 10000 workers that work for longer shifts. So, it was quite obvious that they wanted the shift hours to be lesser. But, this survey was never given importance by any prominent organization.

Secondly, the skills of the workers need to be analyzed if they want to be part of management restructuring and redesigning. There is a management hierarchy in most of the companies and that exist because of the level of expertise brought by every worker. So, if a worker wants to give suggestions on the corporate restructuring, then he must have valid knowledge about the process. To restructure and redesign a process in a corporate is a complex step which requires high skill of analytic and logical thinking along with management knowledge. For example, in a packaging company, if a worker who packages the items wants to redesign the process of packaging by removal of few machines and purchasing new ones, then it will incur heavy costs and will imply unnecessary pressure on the supply chain mechanism. So, such decisions are to be analyzed at granule level by the experts on the subject. Hence, skill sets of the workers are utmost important to really give helping advise to a corporate.

However, suggestions of any kind by any person, which can benefit a company should be entertained. There are personal emails and contacts of the management people in open forums so that people can reach out to them and provide any information. Workers are the pillars of any organization and their suggestions must be heard. But it requires time and effort by the management team, which they generally don't have some times. Consequently, workers becoming apathetic towards corporate seems to be true.

In conclusion, workers may be apathetic towards corporate issues and a single survey can not refute this notion. In addition, workers are least interested in the issues as they don't have requisite skills to acknowledge the problems in greater depth. Corporate restructuring and redesigning are high level management subjects and require lot of understanding and planning.