GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."

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.

MY RESPONSE:
The argument that free lunches will motivate employees to work harder is not justified by the evidence given above. Not only does the argument use vague language, but assumptions are made regarding causality of increased working hours and increased company profits.

An example of vague language used by the argument is that employees will "work harder" when given a free lunch, but no specifics are provided as to what that means for the company. Working "harder" does not necessarily mean that employees are putting in more hours, working more efficiently, or doing any activities that will help the company increase profits. Because the language is vague, we do not know the specifics of what the company is trying to achieve through a free lunch program. Therefore, this type of language does little to help the argument.

As well as using vague language, the argument also makes assumptions in regards to the causality of increased average employee working hours, and increased company profits. It's possible that a large project was being implemented at the time, which could explain increased working hours. It's also possible that the company launched a new, successful product at this time, which could account for increased profits. Both of these are possible scenarios that would have nothing to do with the free lunch program. There is no evidence to show that the increased profits and working hours are connected to a free lunch program, other than the fact that they happened at the same time.

In conclusion, this argument fails to justify implementing a free lunch program for employees due to the use of vague language as well as making assumptions. Had the argument used more specific language and provided evidence to show a strong link between free lunches and increased working hours and profits, it would have been much stronger.