"A lot has been written about the notion that workers are dissatisfied

Question

The following appeared in a corporate newsletter:
"A lot has been written about the notion that workers are dissatisfied with the working conditions in our manufacturing facilities. The rumor is based on the protests by the labor union workers in the last three months. Those writing passionately on the issue may want to know that a paltry 20% of the workers have participated in the protests. Further, in our internal survey, an overwhelming 70% of the participating workers gave positive feedback for the working conditions. Last year the management spent more money on improving the working conditions that what it did collectively in the three preceding years. Clearly, the notion is uncalled for and there is no significant scope for improvement in the working conditions in our working facilities. "

My response -

The given statement refutes the claims of some people who say that the workers are dissatisfied by the working conditions in the manufacturing facilities. The writer of the statement takes into account the low attendance of workers during the protests and also the fact that among those who attended the protests, only 30% gave negative feedback regarding the working conditions. Also, it has been stated that the management has spent a large amount on the improvement of working conditions during the last year. So the speaker reaches the conclusion that no improvement is possible in the current working conditions of the manufacturing facilities. The conclusion reached is flawed for a number of reasons.

The statement states that only 20% of the workers attended the protests but fails to take into account the reasons behind the low attendance. It could be the case that the management had confronted the rest of the workers or threatened them with dire consequences if they attended the protests. It can also be the case that the attendance was not taken at the time when the majority of workers joined the protests. The statistics provided should have been backed up with appropriate reasons and source.

The statement also assumes that no improvement is required as 70% of the workers who attended the protests gave positive feedback regarding the working conditions. The writer has not considered the case where the majority of people attending the protests could be new employees in the sector and have no prior experience to judge the current working conditions. It can also be the case that many people just followed the crowd like sheep without having any knowledge as to what was going on. Also, the speaker has not provided the numbers to clarify if the number of people who were interviewed is sufficient to reach a conclusion.

Then there is the case of management spending money on improving the working conditions. The speaker tells that the management has spent an amount equal to the amount spent over the last three years towards the improvement of working conditions and considers that amount to be sufficient. There are no statistics to support this claim. It can be the case that the amount spent over the last year was not even 20% of the amount actually required.

In conclusion, the argument made by the writer is not supported by proper statistics and facts. There should be a table providing the data regarding the total number of workers and the total funds required to achieve the above mentioned safe working conditions.

DisciplinedPrep · Answer

I think your essay is well written but I would still advise you to use structural keywords, especially at the beginning of paragraphs. With a little bit of practice, you can achieve a 5.5 - 6 on the real GMAT. Please make sure to copyedit your essay for a minimum of 2 min, to avoid a few grammar errors. All the best.

Please visit this gold standard post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html

Please visit this gold standard post:  https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html

JRBrow01 · Answer

Your answer is very well formatted and presents the flaws in the author's logic concisely. My following feedback is really nit-picking.

I think you may have been able to take advantage of the vague language used in the prompt itself and made the case that the internal survey was separate from the protest and that the "participating" workers is actually alluding to the workers who decided to answer the internal survey. This would open up a pretty strong paragraph including 1) when the survey was taken and the number of participants (which you mentioned), 2) if the survey was conducted simultaneously to the protests occurring it can be safely assumed the protesting workers did not partake in the survey and thus the 70% could theoretically represent a satisfaction rate of only 56% and 3) whether the 70% was actually representative or biased based on worker's who participate are presumably more satisfied/compliant with the company.

saukrit · Answer

A good response, but can be better if using the keywords as per the below template by chineseburned. https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html Posted from my mobile device

Deepakdc · Answer

The argument claims that the notion of a company's workers are dissatisfied with working conditions in the company's manufacturing facilities is uncalled for and that no significant scope is available for improvement in the working conditions in the company's manufacturing facilities. The argument cites that only 20% of the workers are participating in the protest against the company and that 70% of the workers in an internal survey gave an overwhelming positive feedback to the working conditions. Though compelling at face value, the argument is ultimately untenable because it rests on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and is deeply flawed.

Firstly, the argument readily dismisses the conflict as rumor that is based on protests by labor union workers in the last three months. However, the argument gives no justification in this regard.There are multiple examples in business and commerce when internal whistle blowers have exposed the malpractices happening inside the company premises. The statement seems more to be a wishful thinking on the part of the author rather than a statement based on facts.The argument could have been more convincing if it had provided clear evidence to back up its claim rather than dismissing the statements as rumors by the protesting workers. As no information is provided, the argument remains flawed.

Secondly, the argument cites statistics without mentioning the background of the surveys. Simply stating percentages does not always signify numbers. For example, the argument mentioned that only 20% of its workers have participated in the protests. However, we are not given any information about the total number of workers in the company. If the total number of workers were to be 100,000,000, then the 20% of this number would be a large number of people and should warrant the attention of the company's management on the veracity of the protests and complaints. Also, the argument also cites that 70% of the participating workers gave positive feedback for the working conditions. However, we are not given any information on the nature of the survey and type of people selected for the survey. It does not definitively guarantee that working conditions do not require any improvement. For example, if the people selected for the survey have an inherent bias towards the company then the results of the survey would be disputed. Also, we are not given any information on number of people who participated in the survey in the company. As these information are not provided, we cannot judge the outcome of this conclusion and the argument is unsubstantiated.

Thirdly, the argument claims that argument spends more money than it collectively in the last three preceding years. However, this reasoning has a fatal flaw. There is no information provided about the total amount spent in the last three years. If the amount in last three years is low by industry standards, then the argument would be severely weakened. Also, we are not given how much greater did it spend this year than the amount spent last three years combined. The argument could have been more strengthened if it had provided a company-wise comparison with its other competitors in the same industry so that we could effectively judge the feasibility of the statement. As no such information is provided, the argument remains unconvincing.

In summary, the argument falls short in many respects. It could have been more convincing if it provided sufficient evidence to back up its claims as discussed in aforementioned cases. Without sufficient evidence, the argument is unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.

"A lot has been written about the notion that workers are dissatisfied

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards