Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 6 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 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: 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: 4/5
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!
I suggest you to read the AWA forum rules before you post anything in the forum, read the rules in the post in the link below.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.htmlGood Lucknaven wrote:
The following appeared as part of an article in the education section of a Waymarsh city newspaper:
"Throughout the last two decades, those who earned graduate degrees found it very difficult to get jobs teaching their academic specialties at the college level. Those with graduate degrees from the Waymarsh University had an especially hard time finding such jobs. But better times are coming in the next decade for all academic job seekers, including those from Waymarsh. Demographic trends indicate that an increasing number of people will be reaching college age over the next 10 years; consequently, we can expect that the job market will improve dramatically for people seeking college-level teaching positions in their fields.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument states that the manufacturing company’s factory in Cookville which is the most advanced and efficient, is capable of producing ten drill bits for each dollar of production against the rest of factories which can only produce a maximum of seven drill bits per dollar. Further the author states that the only way to achieve the larger goal of reducing the overall production costs is by reducing the production costs of individual machine parts and dedicating the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production and shifting all other machine part production to other factories will help the company to attain that larger goal. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the goal of reducing the overall production costs can be achieved by dedicating the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production and shifting the rest of the machine part production to other factories. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For instance, the production costs of other machine parts could be much higher than the production costs of drill bit. Clearly, the overall production costs could be reduced if the Cookville factory is dedicated to the machine parts with high production costs. The argument could have been much clearer if the author has shared the production costs associated with each of the machine parts.
Second, the argument claims that the factory in Cookville is capable of producing ten drill bits for each dollar of production costs, whereas none of the other factories produce more than seven drill bits per dollar of production. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument doesn’t demonstrate the quality parameters of the parts produced. To illustrate, it could be a case that the quality of drill bits manufactured in the Cookville factory is low in comparison with the drill bits manufactured in other factories. If the argument had provided evidence on the quality of drill bits manufactured in Cookville factory in comparison to the drill bits manufactured in other factories then the argument would have been lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is 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. In this particular case, more data on various parameters such as the costs, quality etc. of the machine parts and the factories are essential for assessing the merits of this situation. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.