Hi all,
This is my first attempt at AWA. I have gone through some of the articles of BTG and have tried my hand on the below said argument. Please review my essay and help me improve in AWA.
The Argument:
The Japanese always have to consult a companion or call a conference to solve even the most trivial things. In India, there are definite rules for family members (and this is also true for other social groups), so that when one wants to do something, one knows whether it is all right by following those rules. Because of the rule system, things get done more quickly in India.
My take on the argument:
The argument claims that the presence of a rule system in social groups enables quicker work turn around in India. It compares the modus operandi of the Japanese and Indians and alleges that the difference between the speeds at which works get completed is due to the rule system. The statement has some flaws which will be addressed here.
The primary flaw in the statement is the assumption that the presence of rule system enabled works to be completed quickly in India. The argument fails to provide concrete evidence which can prove that following the rules helped in the speedy completion of work. It is possible that it was actually the disobeyance of the rules that helped speed up the work.
Another flaw in the statement is the assumption that a rule system is absent in Japan and that is why the need for consulting a companion or call a conference arose. The definite rules that the statement claims to be present in India, may also be present in Japan and it may be the adherence to those rules which prompts the Japanese to get concurrence from other members of the group.
Lastly, the statement fails to provide more insight into the specific qualities of the said rules, that are part of a social group, which enable the Indians to work in a quicker way.
To conclude, the argument provides a comparison without strong supporting examples. The argument could have been stronger, had there been references of scenarios that had happened in the past which confirmed that following the rules and rules alone helped Indians to get things done fast. Explaining the specific qualities of the rules would have also helped to the veracity of the statement.
This is my first attempt at AWA. I have gone through some of the articles of BTG and have tried my hand on the below said argument. Please review my essay and help me improve in AWA.
The Argument:
The Japanese always have to consult a companion or call a conference to solve even the most trivial things. In India, there are definite rules for family members (and this is also true for other social groups), so that when one wants to do something, one knows whether it is all right by following those rules. Because of the rule system, things get done more quickly in India.
My take on the argument:
The argument claims that the presence of a rule system in social groups enables quicker work turn around in India. It compares the modus operandi of the Japanese and Indians and alleges that the difference between the speeds at which works get completed is due to the rule system. The statement has some flaws which will be addressed here.
The primary flaw in the statement is the assumption that the presence of rule system enabled works to be completed quickly in India. The argument fails to provide concrete evidence which can prove that following the rules helped in the speedy completion of work. It is possible that it was actually the disobeyance of the rules that helped speed up the work.
Another flaw in the statement is the assumption that a rule system is absent in Japan and that is why the need for consulting a companion or call a conference arose. The definite rules that the statement claims to be present in India, may also be present in Japan and it may be the adherence to those rules which prompts the Japanese to get concurrence from other members of the group.
Lastly, the statement fails to provide more insight into the specific qualities of the said rules, that are part of a social group, which enable the Indians to work in a quicker way.
To conclude, the argument provides a comparison without strong supporting examples. The argument could have been stronger, had there been references of scenarios that had happened in the past which confirmed that following the rules and rules alone helped Indians to get things done fast. Explaining the specific qualities of the rules would have also helped to the veracity of the statement.
