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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
sheungcheng
Joined: 10 Feb 2022
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Hong Kong
Schools: INSEAD Aug'23 intake (A)
GPA: 3.44
19 Feb 2022, 07:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter:
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In this editorial, the author argues that railroad companies should pay lower property taxes than trucking companies because train is a more cost effective way to transport goods than trucks. This claim is not convincing as it lacks of supports to justify the augment.
First, there are more trucks travelling on the highway every day than trains on the railroads. Charging a small amount of maintenance cost for each track actually add up to a high number in total, which might exceeds the the amount of taxes that railroad companies pay.
Second, the author claims that train is cost-effective and environmental friendly as it consumes less fuel than a truck. However, the author neglects the fact that train can transport goods to only fixed locations, where there are stations that trains can stop. If the destination is not close to any train stations, the goods have to transfer to another transportation until they reach the destination. It might costs extra time and money compared to shipping by trucks.
Third, the assumption about increasing rail traffic with the existing lines is problematic. It doesn’t take into account the current usage of the railroads. If the railroad traffic is already busy at the current stage, it will be difficult to add more trips to increase traffic. Also, the railroads was built a long time ago, and the existing lines might not travel to some new established cities, which demand for goods is growing. Without building new lines, trains simply can’t reach those locations, making trucks the only option to deliver goods to those areas.
For the reasons mentioned above, the argument is not sound or persuasive. The augment will be more convincing if the author can address the issues and provide more solid evidences to strengthen the assumptions.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In this editorial, the author argues that railroad companies should pay lower property taxes than trucking companies because train is a more cost effective way to transport goods than trucks. This claim is not convincing as it lacks of supports to justify the augment.
First, there are more trucks travelling on the highway every day than trains on the railroads. Charging a small amount of maintenance cost for each track actually add up to a high number in total, which might exceeds the the amount of taxes that railroad companies pay.
Second, the author claims that train is cost-effective and environmental friendly as it consumes less fuel than a truck. However, the author neglects the fact that train can transport goods to only fixed locations, where there are stations that trains can stop. If the destination is not close to any train stations, the goods have to transfer to another transportation until they reach the destination. It might costs extra time and money compared to shipping by trucks.
Third, the assumption about increasing rail traffic with the existing lines is problematic. It doesn’t take into account the current usage of the railroads. If the railroad traffic is already busy at the current stage, it will be difficult to add more trips to increase traffic. Also, the railroads was built a long time ago, and the existing lines might not travel to some new established cities, which demand for goods is growing. Without building new lines, trains simply can’t reach those locations, making trucks the only option to deliver goods to those areas.
For the reasons mentioned above, the argument is not sound or persuasive. The augment will be more convincing if the author can address the issues and provide more solid evidences to strengthen the assumptions.
19 Feb 2022, 08:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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!
Good Luck
sheungcheng
26 Jul 2022, 04:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, please help to grade my essay:
The argument claims that railway shipping is a more appropriate choice to deliver goods than truck shipping since railways invest more in their facilities than the highway which trucking used as main route to ship goods. Also trains consume less fuel than trucks, therefore they are more cost efficient and environmental friendly. The author readily assumes that the government should lower railroad company tax, since it is more appropriate mean of ground transportation than highway shipping. However, the argument fails to consider the limitation of railways transportation. Further, the argument does not assess the costs of maintaining and upgrading railways facilities. The argument relies on assumption that is not convincing and has no clear evidence to support the plan. Hence, the argument has some flaws.
First, the argument compares usage of railway transportation directly with usage of truck transportation. It is true that rail lines are exist and may be sufficient to commute. However, it omits the fact that railways transportation may does not built to transport good. Since the argument does not mention about how railways will deliver goods, one can assumes that it is built mostly for commuter rather than shipping goods. If the argument provided more information on comparing train’s current application and truck’s application, the conclusion could have been more convincing.
To be honest, as train is superior in terms of cost efficient and environmental friendly, the premise sounds persuasive. However, the author does not consider that costs of maintaining and upgrading the facilities for railway may be required more frequent than for roads for trucks. The claims that railways are more cost efficient will fail on the long term Therefore this breaks the plan that will reduce tax on railways company, because of more cost efficient.
In summary, the argument looks persuasive for the above-mentioned analysis. However, the argument could have been more strengthened, if the argument gives more concrete evidences. In order to fully understand the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of train current application and nature of railway maintenance. Without further assessment, the argument is more of a vague opinion rather than substantiated conclusion. Hence, the conclusion remains open to debate.
The argument claims that railway shipping is a more appropriate choice to deliver goods than truck shipping since railways invest more in their facilities than the highway which trucking used as main route to ship goods. Also trains consume less fuel than trucks, therefore they are more cost efficient and environmental friendly. The author readily assumes that the government should lower railroad company tax, since it is more appropriate mean of ground transportation than highway shipping. However, the argument fails to consider the limitation of railways transportation. Further, the argument does not assess the costs of maintaining and upgrading railways facilities. The argument relies on assumption that is not convincing and has no clear evidence to support the plan. Hence, the argument has some flaws.
First, the argument compares usage of railway transportation directly with usage of truck transportation. It is true that rail lines are exist and may be sufficient to commute. However, it omits the fact that railways transportation may does not built to transport good. Since the argument does not mention about how railways will deliver goods, one can assumes that it is built mostly for commuter rather than shipping goods. If the argument provided more information on comparing train’s current application and truck’s application, the conclusion could have been more convincing.
To be honest, as train is superior in terms of cost efficient and environmental friendly, the premise sounds persuasive. However, the author does not consider that costs of maintaining and upgrading the facilities for railway may be required more frequent than for roads for trucks. The claims that railways are more cost efficient will fail on the long term Therefore this breaks the plan that will reduce tax on railways company, because of more cost efficient.
In summary, the argument looks persuasive for the above-mentioned analysis. However, the argument could have been more strengthened, if the argument gives more concrete evidences. In order to fully understand the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of train current application and nature of railway maintenance. Without further assessment, the argument is more of a vague opinion rather than substantiated conclusion. Hence, the conclusion remains open to debate.
