AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Follow the AWA forum rules:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.htmlGood LuckSayan95 wrote:
Hi,
Please review my AWA Response:
The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.
The argument claimed by the author suggests that improper planning in purchasing raw materials and delay in manufacturing are affecting the company’s revenue. Purchasing manager is not fit for the position since he doesn’t have relevant experience in identifying good quality metals. The premises and assumptions used by the author to arrive at the conclusion is not substantiated with proper reasoning and has a few flaws which makes the conclusion unacceptable.
Firstly, the author attributed the falling revenue and delay in manufacturing of the company to the poor planning of purchasing materials. The reasoning used by the author is not logically placed as delay in manufacturing can occur as a result of various other reasons even if the raw materials are procured timely. Factors like unwilling manpower who are not working efficiently, outdated machineries and processing equipment and imbalance in supply and demand cycle may lead to a delayed manufacturing, thus, resulting in late deliveries to customers. Author fails to consider the above-mentioned factors and thus, the reasoning is not fully substantiated.
Secondly, author claims that a Manager having an experienced background in General Business, psychology and sociology is not a right fit for Purchasing Manager. This claim is flawed because, expertise in general business includes substantial exposure across all spectrums of business. That includes, negotiating with the vendor for right tender prices, choosing the right parties for logistics and delivery and other relevant activities which directly impacts the company revenue. Thus, a Manager declared as inappropriate on grounds of low knowledge about metal quality and properties clearly does not sound logical and needs a reconsideration before replacing him with someone else.
Thirdly, replacing an already experienced business personnel with a scientist for identifying good quality metals with the aim of fixing the issue of delay in delivery is illogically explained. Author has not assessed the possibility of not only accommodating the existing manager along with the scientist so that the quality of metals can be ensured but also leveraging the expertise of the existing manager in business terms. Simply bringing in a scientist with little or no business exposure might not help the company reach its objective of increasing the revenue.
To conclude, the premises drawn, and the subsequent solutions provided to reach a target is not convincing and does not seem to achieve the target. Author should consider utilizing the employees with their respective areas of specialty, revising the company policies for Procurement to ensure timely delivery of materials to arrive at the feasibility of the proposed idea. Otherwise, with such loosely reasoned assumptions and inferences, the argument is clearly an invalid one.
Thank you in advance.