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 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 Jun 2022, 08:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi - Please help me grade my AWA!
Prompt:
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company:
“It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Reponse:
The argument states that it is no longer beneficial for their business to continue offering employees a generous benefits and incentives package since unemployment rates are currently high and that the money can be better used to replace existing plant machinery. The conclusion is based on the premise that during high unemployment periods, employees still stay at the company regardless if there are any benefits or incentive packages. However, the argument lacks relevant evidence and assumptions that apply to the argument. For example, the author mentions that the money saved from removing incentive and bonus packages would be better spent on new plant machinery and sophisticated equipment, but does not give any evidence. Additionally, the author argues that only during periods of low unemployment will incentives and benefits be necessary without giving any examples if this has been true for the company historically. Therefore, in order to improve the argument, the author must add additional evidence to support the current argument.
First, the argument argues that the money saved from removing incentives and bonuses will be better used to replace the equipment at the business. However, the author does not state any quantitative data to help us understand the economics behind this statement. On the other hand, the author ascribes no value to these incentive packages during periods of high unemployment. Without additional evidence, it is unclear if there is a better choice economically between the two. Therefore, in order to improve the argument, the author should help readers understand the economics between the two decisions.
Additionally, the author argues that only during periods of low unemployment does the business need to have incentive packages to employees. However, this statement does not state whether this historically has applied to the company. This may be a statement that may not apply to the company due to the skill level or demand of workers in this field, and without more context, the opposite scenario can also be true for the company. Despite high overall unemployment, the business industry may have low unemployment which may be counterintuitive. Therefore, the author can strengthen the argument by adding additional context around unemployment figures in the industry.
In conclusion, the argument lacks strong evidence in the statements mentioned. To improve the argument, the author can include additional evidence to support why the money will be better spent on machinery or building a new factory and if there has been historical evidence that during periods of high unemployment the business did not need to have benefits/incentive packages.
Prompt:
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company:
“It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Reponse:
The argument states that it is no longer beneficial for their business to continue offering employees a generous benefits and incentives package since unemployment rates are currently high and that the money can be better used to replace existing plant machinery. The conclusion is based on the premise that during high unemployment periods, employees still stay at the company regardless if there are any benefits or incentive packages. However, the argument lacks relevant evidence and assumptions that apply to the argument. For example, the author mentions that the money saved from removing incentive and bonus packages would be better spent on new plant machinery and sophisticated equipment, but does not give any evidence. Additionally, the author argues that only during periods of low unemployment will incentives and benefits be necessary without giving any examples if this has been true for the company historically. Therefore, in order to improve the argument, the author must add additional evidence to support the current argument.
First, the argument argues that the money saved from removing incentives and bonuses will be better used to replace the equipment at the business. However, the author does not state any quantitative data to help us understand the economics behind this statement. On the other hand, the author ascribes no value to these incentive packages during periods of high unemployment. Without additional evidence, it is unclear if there is a better choice economically between the two. Therefore, in order to improve the argument, the author should help readers understand the economics between the two decisions.
Additionally, the author argues that only during periods of low unemployment does the business need to have incentive packages to employees. However, this statement does not state whether this historically has applied to the company. This may be a statement that may not apply to the company due to the skill level or demand of workers in this field, and without more context, the opposite scenario can also be true for the company. Despite high overall unemployment, the business industry may have low unemployment which may be counterintuitive. Therefore, the author can strengthen the argument by adding additional context around unemployment figures in the industry.
In conclusion, the argument lacks strong evidence in the statements mentioned. To improve the argument, the author can include additional evidence to support why the money will be better spent on machinery or building a new factory and if there has been historical evidence that during periods of high unemployment the business did not need to have benefits/incentive packages.
06 Jun 2022, 23:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 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: 4.5/5
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
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!
Coherence and connectivity: 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: 4.5/5
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
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
phambrenda
03 Nov 2022, 01:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sajjad1994
Hi Sajjad, would appreciate if you could get the following essay graded.
Thanks
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company.
“It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.”
As part of a business plan being discussed at the board meeting of Perks Company, it is suggested that, Perks should cease offering generous package of benefits and incentives to its employees. The reasoning behind such suggestion is that, Perks needs generous packages to attract and retain quality talent when unemployment rates are low. However, since the current rates of unemployment are high, it’s not cost effective to offer generous packages to employees, instead the money saved from such packages should be utilised for buying more sophisticated machinery or even for building a new plant. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument relies on assumptions, for which no evidence is provided. The argument is rather unconvincing, given the obvious flaws.
Firstly, the argument states that it is not financially viable to continue to offer generous package of benefits and incentives to employees; however, no relevant data is shared to support this line of reasoning. Unless specific figures related to the cost of the package are made available, thereby enabling a thorough analysis of returns against the cost, it is not possible to validate the claims of the argument.
Additionally, the argument suggests that, Perks should rescind offering a generous package to employees because the unemployment rates are currently high. If such suggestion is implemented, then it might negatively impact the image of the company in the job market. Perks would come across as an opportunist organisation and this move will further hamper the current and prospective employees trust towards the organisation. Moreover, the argument provides no data, which enables to identify the category of employees for whom the unemployment rates are high. For instance, majority of Perks employees could belong to a highly talented cohort for whom the high rates of unemployment are not even applicable. Hence, if the generous package is removed, it might cost the company with high rate of attrition.
Lastly, the argument suggests a plan of utilizing the money saved from benefits and incentives package for purchasing technologically advanced machines or even for building a new plant. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The argument provides no information about tentative cost savings and how much capital would be needed to buy new machinery or building a new plant. It could be possible that the cost savings are minuscule as compared to the amount of capital required for enhancing the plant and machinery. Hence, a detailed report would be needed to do a feasibility analysis in order to consider the suggested plan.
Thus, the argument has several glaring logical discrepancies. It started on a sound premise but lacked necessary date to bolster its reasoning. If the argument had drawn upon the imperative data and analyses as suggested above and thereby plugged holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.
Hi Sajjad, would appreciate if you could get the following essay graded.
Thanks
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company.
“It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.”
As part of a business plan being discussed at the board meeting of Perks Company, it is suggested that, Perks should cease offering generous package of benefits and incentives to its employees. The reasoning behind such suggestion is that, Perks needs generous packages to attract and retain quality talent when unemployment rates are low. However, since the current rates of unemployment are high, it’s not cost effective to offer generous packages to employees, instead the money saved from such packages should be utilised for buying more sophisticated machinery or even for building a new plant. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument relies on assumptions, for which no evidence is provided. The argument is rather unconvincing, given the obvious flaws.
Firstly, the argument states that it is not financially viable to continue to offer generous package of benefits and incentives to employees; however, no relevant data is shared to support this line of reasoning. Unless specific figures related to the cost of the package are made available, thereby enabling a thorough analysis of returns against the cost, it is not possible to validate the claims of the argument.
Additionally, the argument suggests that, Perks should rescind offering a generous package to employees because the unemployment rates are currently high. If such suggestion is implemented, then it might negatively impact the image of the company in the job market. Perks would come across as an opportunist organisation and this move will further hamper the current and prospective employees trust towards the organisation. Moreover, the argument provides no data, which enables to identify the category of employees for whom the unemployment rates are high. For instance, majority of Perks employees could belong to a highly talented cohort for whom the high rates of unemployment are not even applicable. Hence, if the generous package is removed, it might cost the company with high rate of attrition.
Lastly, the argument suggests a plan of utilizing the money saved from benefits and incentives package for purchasing technologically advanced machines or even for building a new plant. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The argument provides no information about tentative cost savings and how much capital would be needed to buy new machinery or building a new plant. It could be possible that the cost savings are minuscule as compared to the amount of capital required for enhancing the plant and machinery. Hence, a detailed report would be needed to do a feasibility analysis in order to consider the suggested plan.
Thus, the argument has several glaring logical discrepancies. It started on a sound premise but lacked necessary date to bolster its reasoning. If the argument had drawn upon the imperative data and analyses as suggested above and thereby plugged holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.
