Hi all - I'm new to the forum, and just took my first
MGMAT CAT. I usually consider myself a fairly strong writer (I'm certainly better on Verbal than Quant!), but I would love to get some feedback on my essay. In particular, I'm interested to see if people think my arguments are compelling, or I'm choosing poor examples? Also, any advice on improvements to my structure (Intro, Body Paragraphs, Conclusion) would be appreciated!
Thanks!
____
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and
the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under
Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population
increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and
reelected Varro."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.--------
The editorial argues that the City of San Perdito would be better served by elected former Mayor Varro than re-electing the current mayor, Montoya. Although the evidence presented in the editorial certainly lends itself towards such a conclusion – and there may indeed be a case that Varro is a stronger Mayoral candidate than Montoya - the argument is also deeply flawed for three principal reasons.
First, the argument that population has decreased, unemployment has increased, and existing businesses have closed at a faster rate than new businesses have opened does not take into account the reality that exogenous factors entirely outside the Mayors’ control could have created this economic situation. A Mayor has limited control over the workings of a national economy, and to some extent Mayors are at the mercy of broader economic trends. For example, in the 2008 financial crisis, even well-managed cities were severaly negatively impacted, with rising unemployment, massive foreclosures, and economic pain. This took place regardless of their specific policies. If the editorial could demonstrate that the regional or national economy was on solid footing, or at least had not changed significantly between Varro and Montoya. Absent such evidence, we are unable to deduce to what extent Montoya’s policies and leadership actually impacted the employment situation and business climate.
A second but related flaw in the argument is that the indicators presented as evidence of Montoya’s weaknesses could actually be interpreted several ways. For example, we only know that unemployment decreased and population increased under former Mayor Varro. We don’t know why. While it’s certainly possible that Varro created a solid economic climate through sound policies, it’s equally possible that Varro was able to lure a major employer to the city with the promise of favorable tax breaks, but then the employer pulled out of the city anyway during Montoya’s mayorship because the legislature refused to extend the tax breaks. Such things have happened in the past. For example, when Maytag pulled out of towns across the Midwest, it caused mass unemployment because Maytag was the main employer in those towns. Maytag did not leave because of poor management by the Mayor of the town, but simply left because they were able to secure a competitive advantage by relocating manufacturing to countries with lower labor costs. This argument could be improved if the author could demonstrate a tangible link between Montoya’s policies and the rising unemployment. However, the economic indicators – stripped of their context – don’t actually tell us much.
Finally, the data presented is not adequately granular to draw a meaningful conclusion. For example, while we see that unemployment has increased, and population has decreased, we don’t know by how much. If unemployment has risen by 5%, that is clearly a problem. However, if it has increased by .01%, that is less of a concern. Likewise, we don’t know the relative sizes of the businesses that have opened compared to those that have closed. If the new businesses being created are twice as large – or employ twice as many people – as those businesses closing, then the relative magnitude of the change is less pronounced. Ultimately, unemployment and new business creation are important indicators of the health of a city, but are not the sole indicators. Other measures – everything from infant mortality to water quality to crime rate – are equally important. Knowing how pronounced the change in employment and business creation, as well as other measures of performance of the city, would provide us with more information with which to make a decision. If the author could provide more detail to support his claims, the argument would be much stronger.
In sum, at first glance the evidence presented seems to make a persuasive case that San Perdito would be better served by electing Mayor Varro than Mayor Montoya. However, by analyzing the arguments more closely, we see several flaws with the reasoning in the editorial. We don’t know to what extent national or even global economic forces were responsible for the economic situation in San Perdito. We also don’t know to what extent the economic indicators presented actually validate the argument that Mayor Varro was a strong manager. Finally, we don’t how much unemployment decreased, or the specifics of new business creation, and are unable to assess how meaningful those changes are compared to other indicators. By providing more detailed information to answer these question, we could assess the the validity of the argument. But in the absence of such detail, the editorial does not make a compelling argument in favor of Mayor Varro.