GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hello Members/Instructors,
Recently I took one MGMAT test and the below topic was given for AWA:
"The following appeared in the personal finance section of a popular magazine:

"The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation's population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security."

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 counterexamples 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.
"


To this- I responded like below:

"The retirement investment has become a widely contested topic of late. And with latest and untested and/or unreliable new investment options coming up such as investment in tech start ups or investment in new pension funds etc. the financial security for retirement has become imperative for people to understand what all retirement options work better for them. The author presents one avenue for retirement investment which is investment in real estate by giving facts like 'the average price of a unit of land has appreciated by as much as 50 times from 1970 and over 200 times from what it was in 1920'.
Even though the facts remain true and uncontested but the inference is ill advised. The problem with the first premise of the author is that the rates of land are measured on the base value of year 1920 and 1970 both of which are the years of great depression in economy and hence will always throw up very subdued price of land in those years; which in turn will skew up the calculation and matrix for the land price appreciation. The second premise is based on the fact that the population is ever increasing but not the land available for investment. Although this is logical but still it fails to answer the fact that we still have lots of 'available' land per capita even now than ever since the forests and mountains are leveled up to create even more 'fresh' land for use.
In addition, there are few assumptions that the author has made which compels the inference of author untenable. Primary assumption is that real estate is the only investment that has given the best appreciation so far. Secondary assumption is that real estate ownership is at least as good as any other available options when it comes to liquidity. Many people don't own the real estate for the simple fact that liquidating the real estate is time consuming and costly affair. Besides we cannot always liquidate a part of real estate for example if the author owns one apartment costing around 1 million USD and there is a requirement of only 100,000 USD, even in that case the author will have to sell the complete unit of apartment to obtain 100,000 USD.
The author could have strengthened his argument by providing few more facts and data on the real estate investment as well as some other competing investment options. That would have given us some more data points to evaluate the real estate as an investment option. Without further facts and comparative analysis the inference and conclusion of author remains questionable.
In sum, the author's argument may hold valid in some circumstances; but wide adoptability of his/her conclusion would demand some more data as discussed earlier. In the current form, it will be risky for the investors to invest in real estate as part of their retirement planning. We would like to see some more analysis on real estate investment as financial security for retirement approaching population.
"
Around 500 words in total.

Could some experts please evaluate this to let me konw where do I stand tentatively on a scale of 6?

Regards

Hi gmatclubmember,

Thanks for posting this for review. I have a few thoughts, which I'll break down in chunks below:

1) This was quite a bit to digest in its current state and seemed a bit unorganized. I'd suggest following more of a template that looks something like this:

-First paragraph: Pick a side of the argument you're going to write about and establish it here.
-Second through fourth paragraphs: Use these to show examples that support the argument you're making.
-Conclusion: Restate your argument and sum up why you're taking that stance.

2) Grammar seems to suffer in this essay when your sentences run a bit long. Don't be afraid to use shorter sentences to get your point across. For example, "Besides we cannot always liquidate a part of real estate for example if the author owns one apartment costing around 1 million USD and there is a requirement of only 100,000 USD, even in that case the author will have to sell the complete unit of apartment to obtain 100,000 USD" can easily be separated into two or three sentences. In this current state, it's actually a run-on, so be careful.

3) Don't forget this part of the exam is asking you to make an argument like you might need to in a business setting. When in doubt, keep your word choices as formal as possible and avoid being *too* casual in tone.

Happy to elaborate further here if you'd like.

Best,
Rich

Thanks Rich@EconomistGMAT for your wonderful and timely analysis for my AWA. This AWA was my first attempt - I will definitely look into your suggestions and would try to address these in my next AWA essays. Based on your feedback I would assume that this essay is more or less 4 pointer. I am aiming for something like 5.5 so I would have to go a long way on my essays. Will post my next essays soon.

Looking for your and other expert's support in future too.

Hello Guys,

Request you to please review my analysis on the argument mentioned below.


"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will
virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive
signals from another's transponder-a radio set that signals a plane's course-in order to determine
the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."

Analysis:

The argument claims that by installing a transponder in commercial airlines it can receive signals of another plane's course.Hence,the computerized on-board system that is installed in the plane will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collision.Stated in this way the argument is manipulating the facts and conveys the distorted view of situation.The argument also fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which the argument can be evaluated.

First,the argument readily assumes that the pilot readily changes the plane's course ,once the transponder receives the warning signal from another plane .The statement is a stretch and substantiated in any way.There are cases where the plane collisions happened due to the only negligence of pilots.The above mentioned assumption clearly draws the argument to a debate.The argument also stated that the transponder is capable of receive the signals from another plane.However,there are planes which can travel through stealth mode and are able to hide their signals.This clearly weakens the conclusion that the computerized on-board warning systems will solve the problem of mid air collisions.The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned that this on-board warning system can effectively be used only if each and every plane has its own warning system that should have permissions to communicate with other plane's warning system.

Second,the argument claims that the transponder signals the warning system of another plane and alerts the plane if transponder finds any likelihood of collision.Here,there is a assumption that the transponder signals doesn't do miscommunication with the other radio waves and micro waves.Moreover this fact shatters the conclusion.In addition ,the term 'recommended evasive action' is vaguely illustrated and it didn't conveyed the methods or actions that the plane takes after it receives the warning signal.The argument would have been more convincing if it would have been mentioned about the plane's evasive actions after receiving the warning signal.

Finally, the argument concludes that on-board warning system will solve the problem of mid-air collision.
From this statement again it is not clear how the warning system alone solve the problem without the due dedication of pilots and other staff.Moreover the argument didn't provide any evidence that the warning system's signals doesn't interfere with other spectrum signals.Without convincing answers to these questions,one is left with the assumption that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a one with substantive evidence.

In summary,the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing.It could considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts.Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.