AWA Score: 6 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
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
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
Tusharjoshi573 wrote:
Question
The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:
“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay
The argument presents an evidence of overpayment in windfall purchasing invoices and then presents a monetary value gained by re-checking those invoices. Based on this premise, argument further draws conclusion that Windfall can increase their net gain by instituting a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Furthermore, argument claims that such advice can help the advising consulting firm land windfall account by demonstrating rigorousness of firm’s methods. However, argument makes several unsupported assumption and overgeneralization of small representative data.
To begin with, argument stretches the evidence obtained from small representative data (10% of purchasing invoice of single month). It assumes that if a trend is observed in 10% of invoices of last month, the same trend will be observed regularly in all invoices of all months. However, it is quite possible that stated evidence is a one-of-kind occurrence due to some external factors. For example, sudden change of manager or leave of many employees can cause such overpayments in some invoices. Once these disruptions are settled, the same trend may not continue in future invoices.
Moreover, the argument overlooks the costs involved in the policy of re-checking each purchasing invoice. These costs can outweigh any potential net gain from this policy. Some possible costs that can arise from such a policy are overtime wages of current employees or hiring of some new employees for extra workload. Data regarding both costs and gains is required to evaluate net gains stated in conclusion.
Lastly, the argument draws unsupported conclusion that such a recommendation will help management firm in landing windfall account. More data is required regarding the decision making process of windfall and their requirements from a consulting firm. Argument only states one factor as benefit of hiring the stated consulting firm. Other factors such as cost of hiring, brand value of firm and expertise of firm employees can play a decisive role in the decision of windfall to hire a particular consulting firm.
In summary, the argument is not well reasoned and weak because of unwarranted assumptions and lack of data about other factors. To strengthen the argument, the author must explore more sample data and more relevant factors to institute a particular policy and land windfall account.
Posted from my mobile device