It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 05:46

### 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

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

Track

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

Practice
Pays

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Schools: Jones '16

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2014, 17:47
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

“The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

The argument claims that immigrant workers are the reason of downward pressure on wages. Hence, we need to impose a moratorium on further immigration in order to protect the local economy. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on a weak evidence, from which we could not draw the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that because the inflow of immigrant workers, the average compensation of unskilled labor goes downward. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are many examples in the big cities which average salary goes up thank to the immigrant workers. For instance, Hanoi is Vietnam's capital where millions of immigrant workers annually go to. As the result of immigrant workers, the whole economy grows up which leads to the raise of average compensation.

Second, the argument claims that it is necessary to impose a moratorium on further immigration. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the inflow of immigrant workers and the average compensation. Moreover, The argument fails to consider all the other economic reasons. In fact, there are many factors can lead to the decrease of unskilled labor such as bad economy, bad human resource plan,... In additional, if the argument provided more evidence, the argument could be strengthened further.

Last but not least, the argument concludes that the moratorium can help increase the unskilled labour's compensation. From this statement again, it is not all clear how the regulation can work to make the economy go up. There are a lot of evidence unsupported this conclusion. For examples, USA has imposed many laws to regulate the number of immigrant workers. It does not work well because a lot of people still want to go to the wonder land - USA. Without any supporting evidence and examples from the other communities, one is left with the impression that the claims is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed and 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 situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Director
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 512

Kudos [?]: 574 [1], given: 6

Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2014, 06:12
1
KUDOS
Hello Zacard;

1. Good use of templates and transitions - the essay is well organised.
2. There are several grammatical mistakes
3. You need to elaborate more on each of the points of contention

Let me elaborate on this: find my comments inline to your response.

The argument claims that immigrant workers are the reason of downward pressure on wages. Hence, we need to impose a moratorium on further immigration in order to protect the local economy. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on a weak evidence, from which we could not draw the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that because the inflow of immigrant workers, the average compensation of unskilled labor goes downward. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. - How? Show how this weakens the argument!

There are many examples in the big cities which average salary goes up thank to the immigrant workers. For instance, Hanoi is Vietnam's capital where millions of immigrant workers annually go to. As the result of immigrant workers, the whole economy grows up which leads to the raise of average compensation.
This doesn't necessarily weaken the argument.

Second, the argument claims that it is necessary to impose a moratorium on further immigration. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the inflow of immigrant workers and the average compensation. - Show how this weakens the argument!
Moreover, The argument fails to consider all the other economic reasons. In fact, there are many factors can lead to the decrease of unskilled labor such as bad economy, bad human resource plan,... In additional, if the argument provided more evidence, the argument could be strengthened further.

Last but not least, the argument concludes that the moratorium can help increase the unskilled labour's compensation. From this statement again, it is not all clear how the regulation can work to make the economy go up. There are a lot of evidence unsupported this conclusion. For examples, USA has imposed many laws to regulate the number of immigrant workers. It does not work well because a lot of people still want to go to the wonder land - USA. Without any supporting evidence and examples from the other communities, one is left with the impression that the claims is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed and 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 situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

To further my point:
The assumptions you have zoned in on are precise! - Good job.
But do not forget to show how this flawed assumption could weaken the argument.

Regards,
Peo!
_________________

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

Learn all PS and DS strategies here-
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/p/mastering-quant-on-gmat

Kudos [?]: 574 [1], given: 6

Display posts from previous: Sort by