GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:

"Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working-not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are."


Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc

It is very important to regulate in a right manner any relationship between companies and governmental agencies and various departments. There are many opportunities to exploit this relationship, and the relationship should be monitor at all time and there should be strict penalties for those that behave inappropriately. In the preceding statement, the author claims that it is not necessary to have stronger ethics regulations or stronger enforcement mechanisms in order to ensure ethical behavior by companies in doing business with a particular governmental department. Through his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, I can not accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. He states that the code of ethics already exists and that partner companies are urged to abide it, and that every company has agreed to follow it. He does not provide any evidence that this is a case. There are no official statistical data if these companies are in a line with the code. Also, the author does not any information about the penalties for the code violations. The author's premise, the basic for his argument, lacks any legitimate evidentiary support and renders his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. He assumes that the companies will obey the code of ethics just because they agreed to follow it. This will probably not be a case because we already know that they violated the rules of behavior before. The author assumes that this time they will follow the rules, but he does not provide any reasons for it. He weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between business behaviors of the companies and proper code following.

While the author does have several key flowed issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that entire argument is without base. He should provide information about penalties and fines for companies that do not behave proper. Furthermore, he could present an argument why is he so convince that they will not brake any rules and regulations this time.

In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. He does not provide any clear reason for trusting companies with this new code of conduct. If the author truly hopes to change his renders' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flows in his logic, and clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without this things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince just a few people.