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 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.
06 Apr 2022, 11:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
"A lot has been written around 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 these 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 than 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 manufacturing facilities.
The argument claims that the notion that the workers are dissatisfied with the working conditions in the corporate discussed is completely wrong. Hence, there is no scope of improvement. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument relies on various unwarranted assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that only 20% of the workers participated in protests organized by labor unions and 70% of those who participated gave positive feedback for the working conditions. But what about the remaining 30% who didn't give positive feedback ? Let 's suppose that there are total 1000 workers. 200 of 1000 participated in the protest and 140 of 200 participated gave positive feedback but 60 didn't give positive feedback. If out of 1000 workers, 60 are not satisfied with working conditions then there is high chance that many of the 60 would leave the organization because their issues are not addressed. But if those out of 60 who decide to leave are main employees of the organization then organization can face several problems and productivity would be hampered.
Second, the argument assumes that spending money on improving working conditions means satisfaction among workers. Apart from monetary benefits, works also want some non-monetary benefits such as recognition for work, respect etc. If these non-monetary benefit are not provided , employees tend to leave the organization in the first chance. This situation is nit desirable for any company. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had mentioned how money is spend on improvement of working conditions and what are its result.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no significant scope for improvement in the working conditions. Google is one of the most employee caring company and has very low attrition rates. Even after having high level of employee satisfaction, it still looks for ways of improvement in working conditions of employees. No matter what the level of employee satisfaction, organizations still have to look for ways of improvement in working conditions of employees in order to retain its good employees,
The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had mentioned how corporate plans to fulfil the demands of protesting employees and how corporate uses its money for increasing workers satisfaction. Corporate fails to mention several key evidence that would have supported the argument. Without the above details, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The argument claims that the notion that the workers are dissatisfied with the working conditions in the corporate discussed is completely wrong. Hence, there is no scope of improvement. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument relies on various unwarranted assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that only 20% of the workers participated in protests organized by labor unions and 70% of those who participated gave positive feedback for the working conditions. But what about the remaining 30% who didn't give positive feedback ? Let 's suppose that there are total 1000 workers. 200 of 1000 participated in the protest and 140 of 200 participated gave positive feedback but 60 didn't give positive feedback. If out of 1000 workers, 60 are not satisfied with working conditions then there is high chance that many of the 60 would leave the organization because their issues are not addressed. But if those out of 60 who decide to leave are main employees of the organization then organization can face several problems and productivity would be hampered.
Second, the argument assumes that spending money on improving working conditions means satisfaction among workers. Apart from monetary benefits, works also want some non-monetary benefits such as recognition for work, respect etc. If these non-monetary benefit are not provided , employees tend to leave the organization in the first chance. This situation is nit desirable for any company. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had mentioned how money is spend on improvement of working conditions and what are its result.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no significant scope for improvement in the working conditions. Google is one of the most employee caring company and has very low attrition rates. Even after having high level of employee satisfaction, it still looks for ways of improvement in working conditions of employees. No matter what the level of employee satisfaction, organizations still have to look for ways of improvement in working conditions of employees in order to retain its good employees,
The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had mentioned how corporate plans to fulfil the demands of protesting employees and how corporate uses its money for increasing workers satisfaction. Corporate fails to mention several key evidence that would have supported the argument. Without the above details, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
07 Apr 2022, 04:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Ravin25
AWA Score: 4.5 to 5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 2.5/5
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: 4/5
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: 4.5/5
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: 2.5/5
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: 4/5
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: 4.5/5
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
Moderator:
