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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
07 Mar 2019, 18:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello all forum members,
I'm taking my 1st GMAT next friday. I did not really focus on the AWA part, and as I am a non-native, it's beginning to be a matter of concern to me. Could someone please rate the essay below so that I know what should I improve?
Thanks in advance!
The following appeared as part of an article in a popular science magazine:
“Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable all-day child care must be made available to both male and females scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent.”
The argument claims that scientists of both genders, in order to advance their careers, must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week and thus need to have access to good and affordable child care. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Furthermore, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that scientists, regardless of their study field, are not earning enough to afford child-care on their own. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author does not support this claim by any data or evidence. This clearly is a flaw, as there are many different factors that influence scientists’ earnings. One of them could be the branch of science. For example, a high number of scientists focus their studies on biotechnology or information technology. Since the development of these fields is rapid and highly demanded, it follows that earnings of such researches could enough to cover the costs of child-care. The argument could have been much clearer if it provided data on the average disposable personal income of scientists and the costs related to child-care.
Second, the argument presents two contrary views. On the one hand, it is said that scientists need to have affordable all-day child care available for them, as they typically must spend 60 to 80 hours on work weekly. Then, the author presents a contrary view, claiming that career advancement must be made more flexible so that scientists can spend a significant portion of each day with their preschool-age children. Obviously, scientists cannot be expected to comply with both of these recommendations. If the argument had not used two contrary views, then it would have been much clearer and convincing.
Finally, the argument states that scientist must typically work for 60 to 80 hours a week in order to advance their careers. This is a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the time spent on work, and success in career advancement. Without being provided with transparent statistics, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the aforementioned 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 and evidence. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I'm taking my 1st GMAT next friday. I did not really focus on the AWA part, and as I am a non-native, it's beginning to be a matter of concern to me. Could someone please rate the essay below so that I know what should I improve?
Thanks in advance!
The following appeared as part of an article in a popular science magazine:
“Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable all-day child care must be made available to both male and females scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent.”
The argument claims that scientists of both genders, in order to advance their careers, must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week and thus need to have access to good and affordable child care. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Furthermore, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that scientists, regardless of their study field, are not earning enough to afford child-care on their own. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author does not support this claim by any data or evidence. This clearly is a flaw, as there are many different factors that influence scientists’ earnings. One of them could be the branch of science. For example, a high number of scientists focus their studies on biotechnology or information technology. Since the development of these fields is rapid and highly demanded, it follows that earnings of such researches could enough to cover the costs of child-care. The argument could have been much clearer if it provided data on the average disposable personal income of scientists and the costs related to child-care.
Second, the argument presents two contrary views. On the one hand, it is said that scientists need to have affordable all-day child care available for them, as they typically must spend 60 to 80 hours on work weekly. Then, the author presents a contrary view, claiming that career advancement must be made more flexible so that scientists can spend a significant portion of each day with their preschool-age children. Obviously, scientists cannot be expected to comply with both of these recommendations. If the argument had not used two contrary views, then it would have been much clearer and convincing.
Finally, the argument states that scientist must typically work for 60 to 80 hours a week in order to advance their careers. This is a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the time spent on work, and success in career advancement. Without being provided with transparent statistics, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the aforementioned 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 and evidence. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
08 Mar 2019, 22:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
I see you have followed the chineseburned template. I would say that the essay is indeed very written. With such an essay, you can comfortably get a 5.5-6 on test day to be honest. Therefore, you should not worry about AWA anymore; you could just attempt one essay per day or on alternate days following up to your test day. All the best.
Moderator:
