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
01 Nov 2017, 07:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone
Please let me know what you think about my AWA. This is the first one I write out in full, under timed conditions.
I haven't dedicated much time to the AWA section as I'm quite fluent in English (both written and spoken), but I'm starting to freak out as my exam is tomorrow at 8am UK time.
Thank you!!!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service:
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”
The argument states that out of a sample of 10 of the company’s clients, no clients experienced cases of employee theft. The author of the memorandum also mentions that all companies in the sample require their employees to wear photo ID badges while at work, thus attributes the low theft rate to the photo ID badge requirement, and states that the company will recommend the use of such measures to all of its clients from now on. Although partially logical, the argument displays several flaws, outlined below.
The first issue undermining the strength of the argument is the sample size chosen for the research conducted. The company conducted research on 10 of its clients, without making it clear if 10 is a good sample size for this data to be reliable. The company could have 10,000 clients, and the 10 chosen clients could have all been from the same neighbourhood in the same town. If this were the case, the results derived from the study of the sample would not represent all 10,000 clients and the company should avoid making business-wide decisions based on this unrepresentative sample. For example, the 10 companies could all family-run businesses in the same village in rural Italy, where everyone knows each other and no one would dare steal from their own family. The behaviours of employees in such companies cannot be compared to employees in global organisations in big cities, where crime rate and employee turnover are both typically higher. If the author had given readers clear data on the demographics, size and thus reliability of the sample, the argument would have been stronger.
Another assumption that weakens the argument is that which links photo ID requirement to lower employee theft. The author assumes there is a causal link between the two, without giving readers any facts or statistics to rely on. There are many alternative causes for low employee theft rates in companies, and the fact that all the companies studied have photo ID requirements could just be a coincidence. Taking into consideration the example made above, family-run businesses typically display lower than average employee theft rates, and this definitely isn’t caused by employees having to wear photo ID badges around the office. If the author had shown that this causal link is indeed justified, the argument would definitely have been stronger. Furthermore, the author doesn’t clearly explain when the companies started requiring employees to wear photo IDs - if they had started doing so less than 6 years ago, the findings would be even less reliable, given there were low theft rates before the introduction of such measures. Without answers to such questions, readers cannot establish the trustworthiness of the argument.
Overall, the argument jumps to conclusions without displaying any data or statistics to back its arguments.
It could indeed be that low employee theft rates are directly correlated to photo ID requirements, but because the author provides no evidence for readers to rely on, the argument is quite weak as readers unsurprisingly doubt its far-reaching assumptions.
Please let me know what you think about my AWA. This is the first one I write out in full, under timed conditions.
I haven't dedicated much time to the AWA section as I'm quite fluent in English (both written and spoken), but I'm starting to freak out as my exam is tomorrow at 8am UK time.
Thank you!!!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service:
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”
The argument states that out of a sample of 10 of the company’s clients, no clients experienced cases of employee theft. The author of the memorandum also mentions that all companies in the sample require their employees to wear photo ID badges while at work, thus attributes the low theft rate to the photo ID badge requirement, and states that the company will recommend the use of such measures to all of its clients from now on. Although partially logical, the argument displays several flaws, outlined below.
The first issue undermining the strength of the argument is the sample size chosen for the research conducted. The company conducted research on 10 of its clients, without making it clear if 10 is a good sample size for this data to be reliable. The company could have 10,000 clients, and the 10 chosen clients could have all been from the same neighbourhood in the same town. If this were the case, the results derived from the study of the sample would not represent all 10,000 clients and the company should avoid making business-wide decisions based on this unrepresentative sample. For example, the 10 companies could all family-run businesses in the same village in rural Italy, where everyone knows each other and no one would dare steal from their own family. The behaviours of employees in such companies cannot be compared to employees in global organisations in big cities, where crime rate and employee turnover are both typically higher. If the author had given readers clear data on the demographics, size and thus reliability of the sample, the argument would have been stronger.
Another assumption that weakens the argument is that which links photo ID requirement to lower employee theft. The author assumes there is a causal link between the two, without giving readers any facts or statistics to rely on. There are many alternative causes for low employee theft rates in companies, and the fact that all the companies studied have photo ID requirements could just be a coincidence. Taking into consideration the example made above, family-run businesses typically display lower than average employee theft rates, and this definitely isn’t caused by employees having to wear photo ID badges around the office. If the author had shown that this causal link is indeed justified, the argument would definitely have been stronger. Furthermore, the author doesn’t clearly explain when the companies started requiring employees to wear photo IDs - if they had started doing so less than 6 years ago, the findings would be even less reliable, given there were low theft rates before the introduction of such measures. Without answers to such questions, readers cannot establish the trustworthiness of the argument.
Overall, the argument jumps to conclusions without displaying any data or statistics to back its arguments.
It could indeed be that low employee theft rates are directly correlated to photo ID requirements, but because the author provides no evidence for readers to rely on, the argument is quite weak as readers unsurprisingly doubt its far-reaching assumptions.
Moderators:
189 posts
