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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
21 Dec 2016, 05:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can someone Please review and rate my essay . My AWA is not that good so i a hoping i could just touch a 5 somehow .
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
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 author claims that most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. This argument is unconvincing because it omits some important information that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument makes hasty assumptions for the case to be true without providing concrete evidence for the same. Further, the conclusion of the argument relies on dubious assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence , the argument stands weak and has several flaws.
Firstly , the argument readily claims that most companies would agree the risk of physical injury to be directly proportional to the wages paid to employees. This statement is a stretch because as the risk of physical injury increases on the job , there are very good chances that they are less people to pursue that job. Moreover , the degree of risk varies in accordance to the company views. For example , coal mining operated by machine may be very less risky for a company but when operated by men can be considered a very risky job. Clearly , the argument doesn’t justify the pay increase with respect to increase in risk of physical injury.
Secondly , the argument claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer. While this may be a tempting assumption , its truth is by no means obvious. For a company to follow all the safety standards would require a huge investment on their part. Moreover , there is no guarantee that even after that the employers wont ask for a raise in their salary. For example, a company working with harmful chemicals may employ all the safety standards but the risk of injury may remain the same. Infact , it is not clear how an employer can make financial sense by employing safety standards.
Finally, the argument makes a hasty conclusion that employing safety standards could reduce their payroll expenses and save money. As discussed there is no guarantee for this case to be true. For example , a company may employ all safety standard for a particular job but there is only few people to do that job . In that case the company may have to pay more to the employee than expected. Furthermore, there are other factors which relates to the payroll expenses such as market stability. In the face of such limited evidence , it is fallacious to conclude that employing safety standards can save money.
In summary , 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.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
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 author claims that most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. This argument is unconvincing because it omits some important information that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument makes hasty assumptions for the case to be true without providing concrete evidence for the same. Further, the conclusion of the argument relies on dubious assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence , the argument stands weak and has several flaws.
Firstly , the argument readily claims that most companies would agree the risk of physical injury to be directly proportional to the wages paid to employees. This statement is a stretch because as the risk of physical injury increases on the job , there are very good chances that they are less people to pursue that job. Moreover , the degree of risk varies in accordance to the company views. For example , coal mining operated by machine may be very less risky for a company but when operated by men can be considered a very risky job. Clearly , the argument doesn’t justify the pay increase with respect to increase in risk of physical injury.
Secondly , the argument claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer. While this may be a tempting assumption , its truth is by no means obvious. For a company to follow all the safety standards would require a huge investment on their part. Moreover , there is no guarantee that even after that the employers wont ask for a raise in their salary. For example, a company working with harmful chemicals may employ all the safety standards but the risk of injury may remain the same. Infact , it is not clear how an employer can make financial sense by employing safety standards.
Finally, the argument makes a hasty conclusion that employing safety standards could reduce their payroll expenses and save money. As discussed there is no guarantee for this case to be true. For example , a company may employ all safety standard for a particular job but there is only few people to do that job . In that case the company may have to pay more to the employee than expected. Furthermore, there are other factors which relates to the payroll expenses such as market stability. In the face of such limited evidence , it is fallacious to conclude that employing safety standards can save money.
In summary , 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.
Moderators:
188 posts
