Analysis of Issue- What score would this be?

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:48 am
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:700

Analysis of Issue- What score would this be?

by kap » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:32 pm
Analysis of Issue
The desire of corporations to maximize profits creates conflict with the general welfare of the nation at large.





Some people believe that the desire of corporations to maximize profits creates conflict with the general welfare of the nation at large. This is a controversial debate in which many other people believe that the desire of corporations to maximize profits does not conflict with the general welfare of the nation. Though there are valid arguments to be said for both sides of the issue, a thorough anaylsis provides a convincing argument that the desire of corporations to maximize profits in fact supports the general welfare of the nation.

The primary goal of any for-profit company is to maximize its profits. This is a key factor in a capitalist economy such as that of our nation's. If a company is not seeking to maximize profit, it is not working efficiently. No healthy economy is stagnant. A healthy economy is one that is growing with innovations and advancements in technology and thus relies on companies to seek to be as efficient, innovative, and profitable as possible.

In order for a company to maximize profits, it must minimize its costs. For example, perhaps there are two suppliers to choose from, quality held constant, and a company does not choose the less expensive supplier. In this situation, the supplier has no incentive to make its processes more efficient to reduce its costs. On the other hand, if that company chooses the less expensive supplier, the losing supplier now has an incentive to increase its efficiencies to regain its customer base and stay in business. This incentive to increase efficiency spurs competition in which companies are increasingly more efficient. This in turn promotes the advancement of the economy.

On the other hand, in order for a company to maximizes its profits, it must also maximize its sales. A company can maximize its sales by providing the best product compared to its competitiors. This factor hinges on the quality of products. If a company provides the best product on the market, it will likely have the largest share of the market, prices considered. Competing companies must therefore improve the quality of their products to regain a share in the market. This competition fosters innovation and the growth of technology. For example, the unleashing of Apple's iPhone spurred various competing phones to be made with similar technology, plus added features in order to gain an advantage over the iPhone and regain market share. Since the initial releast of the iPhone, the technology available on one's phone has increased exponentially. This quick paced advancement is spurred by the desire for companies to be as profitable as possible by increasing their revenues throu!
gh higher quality products.

Opponents of this argument cite the recent recession attributed to the large Wall Street firms which took large risks in order to maximize profits. This argument hinges on the fact that the desire to maximize profits creates incentives that don't always benefit the general welfare. In an effort to maximize their profits, Wall Street firms took too large of risks resulting in a massive economic meltdown. However, without risk, there is no gain. It is clear that in this example, the risk was too large. But this example does not negate the benefits of corporations' drive for profits as stated earlier. This example only proves that perhaps more regulation is needed in regards to the methods in which a corporation tries to maximize profits. But clearly the benefits gained from the underlying drive for profit is what bolsters the economy to begin with.

In conclusion, the desire of corporations to maximize profits in not in conflict with the general welfare of the nation. Furthermore, it can be seen that this desire to maximize profits in fact supports the economy. A corporation's drive for profits provides incentives to increase efficiency as well as product quality. In addition, that same drive spurs innovation which leads to a growing economy. Though the methods in which companies attempt to maximize profits may have negative effects, these methods can be regulated to minimize the downsides. It is thus clear that the benefits of companies' desire to maximize profits greatly outweighs the possible downsides, which can be managed to reduce the frequency and gravity.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:27 am
Hi kap,

In my opinion, this essay would receive a 4 or 5.
A few observations:
- you are arguing that the corporate mandate does not conflict with the general welfare of the population, but many of your points suggest that the mandate is good for the economy. I'm not certain that the "economy" is synonymous with "welfare"

- At the end of each supporting paragraph it helps to have a sentence that explains why your point supports your position. This will remind the reader of your position and how your points is in line with that position.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image

Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:02 am
MY FRIENDS, PLEASE, GIVE THE IDEAS ON FOLLOWING ESSAY.

I HAVE PROBLEM, FOR EASY ISSUE, I CAN BRAINSTORM IDEAS QUICKLY. FOR SOME OTHER ISSUE, I FEEL HARD TO BRAINSTORM IDEAS. ANY ONE HAVE ANY METHOD.

Analysis of Issue
The desire of corporations to maximize profits creates conflict with the general welfare of the nation at large.

Some persons think that company maximizing profits conflicts with the welfare of the nation. This is a complicated problem. My idea is clear. I agree that the maximizing conflict heavily conflict with the welfare of the nation.

The first reason for my view is that companies normally reduce or avoid tax which has to be paid to the tax agency. I and you know that government collect tax to buil up the welfare of the nation, to build the road to pay for health card and to do charity. I can not list all the activities needed to be done. All the activities need tax to be done. Companies, however, always try to reduce the tax to be paid to government. The companies hire the very good accountants to make financial reports which reduce the profit on paper. I see in many cases, the chief acountants of companies argue with the tax agency to reduce the tax paid.

The second reason for my view is that companies always avoid to comply with the government regulations which cost the companies money. In environment area, the companies normally avoid to follow the regulations which protect the environment. To maximize the profits, many companies do not install the equipment which filter the toxin matter and let the toxic matter go to the environment. Some companies install the bad or not-good-enough equipment and give money to government officers when the officer come to check the companies. This is terrible.

The third reason for my view involves the matter of human being. The government normally make regulations which protect laborers working in companies. The regulations force the companies to pay minimum salary, social insurance, leave and other things. But normally, the companies never pay enough to the employees.

You may argue than many big companies still pay enough money and insurance to the employee. I think you are wrong. There is only a few companies who do so. Moreover, Those big companies only pay enough money and insurance to the kee managers and skilled labor. Most of the employees even in big companies have no full health care benefit.

In conclusion. I see that company maximizing profit always contradict with the welfare of the nation. If you read the above analysis, you, I think, would agree with me.