GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

“The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

RESPONSE:
The argument that an inflow of immigrant workers which has caused a reduction in wages for unskilled labor is harming the local economy, is not entirely logically conclusive because it makes some major assumptions and doesn't provide enough evidence.

Firstly, the argument assumes that a decline in wages for unskilled labor would harm the economy as a whole. Unskilled labor is applied to construction work as well. The argument doesn't consider the scenario where availability of cheaper labor would help the community infrastructure to develop faster and benefit the citizens, since it would lower costs of employment for those developing buildings, factories, etc. This would attract greater investment in the community as well. Thus giving the local economy a boost.

Secondly, the argument assumes that immigrant workers are the only cause for decreasing wages for unskilled labor. It does not take into account any other cause for instance the economy may be in recession, demand for unskilled labor maybe reducing and therefore the large number of workers (both foreign and local) would drive down the compensation.

Thirdly, the argument does not state how many percent of the unskilled workers are local. If most of the unskilled labor force is foreign to the community, it is actually serving the community's best interests by taking up the unskilled jobs which the locals are too skilled to work in. Thus, this scenario might be best suited for every citizen of the community. If it stated a reason like, locals lose their jobs to immigrant workers who accept lower compensation, then the conclusion to oppose immigration of migrant workers would be better supported.

Thus the argument is not completely sound since it is based on two assumptions and is not supported by enough relevant evidence. It might have been strengthened by providing statistics of people who are negatively affected by the influx of immigrant workers or by stating why immigrant workers are the only cause for decreasing wages.

With reference to the passage above if evidence is provided to prove that the money that is earned by the immigrant workers is spent in foreign area rather then the local area. The argument can become strong saying that the immigration is affecting the local economy. This is because all the money that is generated or earned in the Local area is simply diverted to another area. So the business in the local area is affected because the local people in business will get lesser business.

secondly the argument would sound logically stronger, if it was stated that the wages rather than decreasing have not increased with respect to the inflation. This could be proved if it was stated that better skilled labour was available from foreign area at cheaper rates than local workers.