GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi BTG ppl,
After months of preparing for gmat finally the time has come. This is my first and the last attempt for gmat.
I would appreciate if someone can evaluate the essay I just wrote after reading through articles and adopting some templates.

Analysis of an Argument

The following appeared in an editorial from a magazine produced by an organization dedicated to environmental
protection:

In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those
who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various
manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In
order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should
require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing
process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports.

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




Environmental damage caused by various industries, automobiles is a hot topic today. Its importance is revealed in almost all international summits in which major countries participate.
Such summits give rise to global environmental policies and targets for nations to reduce the environmental damage caused by various processes specific to that country and the Author is probably suggesting a method to reduce environmental damage by making it compulsory for manufacturing processes to submit a report to the government and believes in strict penalties for those who do not comply with. Though his claim that penalties will force the firms to comply with the order has merit, the author presents us with a poorly reasoned argument, questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his proposal will lead to desirable results.

The author makes several unsubstantiated premises which are questionable. In requiring the firms to be aware of the exact type of damage and the amount of damage caused by it to the environment, the author is expecting the impossible. Given the complexity and varied effects of the pollutants in the environment, it is virtually impossible for any firm to describe the damage caused by them. As an example, consider the effects of chromium and lead wastes in industrial effluents. When lead and chromium are mixed with a water source, the damage it causes is substantial. It can cause diseases from cancer to multiple organ failures in humans and animals. It also affects various vegetations. But when it's in a different form, as in some oxides, it can cause a various respiratory diseases. It becomes even more complicated when these wastes gets mixed with other industrial wastes produced by some other firm resulting in other forms of damages. Thus expecting an industry to describe and specify the amount or severity of the damages caused by it is not an attainable goal. Even honest attempts would fail to completely describe the effects accurately. Thus the author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support that it is attainable and accurate, the proposal is unacceptable.

While the author makes several assumptions, the primary assumption that a mere submission of reports shall lead to the reduction in environmental damage is nonsensical. For even a considerable reduction in environmental damage, there is a need for measures that will reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment. And the only useful purpose it serves could be to get some statistics regarding the pollutants. Without any specifications or an upper limit on the amount of pollutants that a firm is permitted to release, there is no incentive for the firm to reduce the amount of pollutants that is being released.
Secondarily but not in anyway less severe than the former assumption is the assumption that these firms shall submit the correct information in these reports and these reports do not have falsified statistics. The firm might well claim that it is environmentally friendly which it may be or may not be. The report would thus lead to a faulty inference and defeat the author's purpose. Thus without any strict monitoring from an external agency, the validity of the contents in the report even if they are submitted to the government regularly by these firms remain questionable. The author weakens his argument that the proposal would be successful by making these assumptions and failing to provide the explanation that reports have genuine and factual information.

While the argument has several key issues in its premises and assumptions, it is not to say that the proposal is completely useless. The author could have addressed the addressed the weakness in his assumptions by proposing a new governmental agency that monitors these reports. A new legislation making it mandatory for industries to comply with environmental standards such as EURO III for automobiles, which allows maximum permissible levels of oxides of carbon in automobile exhaust. A tax incentive to those industries which conform to standards set. With such schemes in place, the industries will have incentives to reduce pollutants and thus a reduction in environmental damage. Though there are several issues with the authors reasoning at present, with research and clarifications, the author could strengthen his argument significantly.

In sum, the author's illogical argument that complying with submission of reports would lead to a reduction in environmental damage is unacceptable. The unsubstantiated premises and flaws in the assumptions defeat the purpose of the argument. If the author truly hopes to convince the readers of the effectiveness of the proposal, he would have to restructure his argument, fix the flaws in the premises, address the loopholes in his assumptions. Without these changes, the poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.





Analysis of an Issue.

"Even at its best, a government is a tremendous burden to business, though a necessary one.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with
reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.


A government such as in a democracy is a collective representation of the people it serves whereas it's a representation of the demands of a king in an autocratic setup.
In either forms the government plays a major role and has a great impact on the businesses that exists within its reach. Although there may be some people who would agree that government is a tremendous burden to businesses, I do not agree. I believe the government is the very reason why a business exists and in addition it provides huge support to these firms in various forms such as tax incentives, skilled and unskilled labor pool, infrastructure in the forms of roads, bridges, airports, transportation and also importantly an order in the society and many more.

The government is almost always responsible for creating new markets for these businesses to venture in. Consider for example a special economic zone. These zones provide many benefits to the industries in the form of tax incentives, labor and infrastructure which no business can afford to create on its own. Consider the reach and global impact the manufacturing firms of china commands today. It is not because that the Chinese have special skills not found anywhere that is responsible for the successes of these firms. It is the governmental backing that is responsible.

The government also provides businesses with an even ground to compete with its competitors. Consider the patent laws, which protect the investments and research made by the company from rivals who can take undue advantage without any investments on its own or the support in terms of foreign policies or protection it offers them from international giants in the banking industry by a tight regulation by the central reserve banks. These businesses would not survive without governmental support. In fact the government protects it people and businesses from negative market tactics such as black marketing and hoarding, which can virtually destroy other dependant businesses.

The burden a government may impose on the business can manifest in the form of bureaucracy, corruption and politics. Although I agree that without the good will of the local politicians and bureaucrats, running a business can be challenging. But it is not a problem with the government as such. It is wrong to say that government is creating the troubles. It is in fact these unscrupulous people who create these so called burdens on the businesses. Instead of blaming the government, the industries should form unions and associations and collectively fight against these kinds of obstacles. Suggest reforms in policies and help making the processes simpler. In fact businesses can influence governmental polices at local and international levels. Hence the government can be beneficial in more ways than it can be an deterrent.

In Sum, while agreeing that the government can be source of burden to businesses in some ways, comparing the benefits and opportunities it provides to the businesses, I conclude that the government is not a burden but it is a boon to the businesses.