GMAT Essays (AWA)

Dear GMAT experts/tutors/instructors on this forum,

I lifted the below AWA essay and prompt from a recent practice test I completed. Can you please rate it on the AWA scale, as well as provide some general feedback on how to improve?

Thank you!
Demetre

PROMPT:

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Coastal Times:

It has become clear that President Leonard needs to be recalled. His approval rating is down below 50% and the unemployment rate is well above its historical average. While I agree with his handling of the recent international conflicts, we simply cannot afford such stagnant economic growth. We must recall President Leonard in order to put our neighbors back to work!

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.

RESPONSE:

The author presents an argument to support impeaching President Leonard in order to resolve an economic crisis. While the author synthesizes some important information surrounding President Leonard and the current economic and political landscape in making his point, the logic he presents is fundamentally flawed, weakening his argument.

One flawed aspect to the author's argument is how he approaches the topic of unemployment. First, the author makes an assumption that unemployment rate being relatively high is representative of poor economic growth, but we are not given a concrete explanation as to why this would be the case. There may be other factors that offset a high unemployment rate and allow for economic growth, or a high unemployment rate may even be an important first step toward near and long term economic growth. We are also not told whether unemployment is trending in a certain direction or not. If we are to indeed assume that employment and economic stability are directly related, then perhaps unemployment, even if higher than average, is decreasing significantly, meaning an increase in economic stability.

Another flawed part of the argument, due primarily to its low possibility of relevance to the situation at hand, is the reference to the President's approval rating. There is no information given to suggest that the extent to which the President is liked is related to his ability to create economic growth. Even if approval is an important factor, perhaps an approval rating under 50%, as high as 49%, is higher than any President that has ever held the office - the rating given here has no relevant reference point, despite the fact that fewer than 50% of those polled approve of the President. Lastly, on that note, we do not know the sample of constituents polled that are less than 50% in favor of the President - perhaps over 50% of them are categorical supporters of his opposition.

Lastly, the argument has an incredible weakness in its references to international matters. We are told that President has handled international conflicts yet are not told the nature of these conflicts. The President's success in this area can therefore not be so easily dismissed as an aside if indeed the nature of the conflicts resolved was relevant to the ultimate stimulation of national economic growth, for example. Moreover, there is a logical gap in the last statement, where the author makes a plea to put "neighbors" back to work. We are not told who these neighbors are or why the putting of them back to work will lead to economic growth. Additionally, if they are indeed international neighbors, then the previous dismissal of the President's success in international affairs becomes even more dubious, as there would be possible reason to believe that the resolution of international conflict may have been to provide jobs to other countries - for which we are not informed if this has a positive or negative impact on national economic growth (e.g. perhaps the creation of overseas jobs is better for national companies, stimulating greater economic growth than simply employing workers locally - tying back to the flaw of mentioning unemployment the way the author does).

In summary, the author presents a series of logically incomplete points to make an argument to remove the President from his office. Where the argument was missing key correlations of the information provided to the matter of economic growth, it could therefore be strengthened by providing such connections. For example, the author could provide details on how expert economists have found that a much lower unemployment rate is needed to provide economic growth, or that national economic growth is strengthened by offering overseas, rather than local jobs. The author could also provide details on what international conflicts the President has resolved, and could even add to his credibility by stating where the approval rate poll is sourced from. Overall, providing the appropriate causation for the details provided to lead to the economic situation, as well as providing sources to add to credibility, will lead to a much more sound argument in the suggestion to remove the President.