GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared as part of a memorandum from a government agency:
“Given the limited funding available for the building and repair of roads and bridges, the government should not spend any money this year on fixing the bridge that crosses the Styx River. This bridge is located near a city with a weakening economy, so it is not as important as other bridges; moreover, the city population is small and thus unlikely to contribute a significant enough tax revenue to justify the effort of fixing the bridge.”

The author concludes that the government ought not to disburse its budget this year on repairing the bridge which crosses the Styx River. The author’s line of reasoning is that the government should use money on other bridges which are more important in economic aspect than the bridge crossing the Styx River. In addition, the small number of city population hardly yields high tax revenue to offset the expenditure of fixing the bridge. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for several reasons.

Most conspicuously, the argument is based on the flawed assumption that the importance of any bridges is determined solely by the economic condition of nearby cities. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Whether a bridge is crucial is judged by many factors, not only the economic aspect. In this argument, the author overlooks many relevant criteria which greatly help to assess a bridge’s importance, such as the number of commuters crossing the bridge, the role of the bridge during local emergencies, the aesthetic beauty of the bridge which makes reputation to the nearby cities, and so on. Therefore, the evaluation based on only economic factor without considering other essential aspects is incomplete.

Also, even if the bridge which crosses the Styx River is truly not important as the author’s claim, the government should investigate the conditions of this bridge first before allocating the budget. Perhaps, the bridge which crosses the Styx River has never been repaired since it was built ten years ago. If so, then the priority must be all the commuters’ safety. Moreover, if the government neglects and the bridge accidentally collapse, the damages and casualties cost much more than the expense of fixing the bridge. The bridge collapse at Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2007 can serve as a good example. Hence, the government should not only assess the importance of the bridge but also consider its condition as another influential factor.

Finally, the author assumes that the small number of population cannot grant significant tax revenue. However, this assumption is not necessarily valid. The tax income is not based on the number of population, yet is largely hinged on the citizens’ capability to pay tax and the city’s tax abatement law. For instance, city A contains only 1,000 residents which all of them must pay tax without any exception, whereas city B comprises 10,000 people but resident majority is impoverished, does not have enough money to pay tax. Besides, the city B’s law allows the tax void for people who have children or elderly to take care of. Consequently, city A earns more tax revenue than does city B. If this is the case, then the author’s argument is greatly weakened.

In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide evidence that the bridge which crosses the Styx River is virtually not important enough in every aspect for the government to spend money to maintain and repair it. The government should also compare the importance of this bridge to those of other bridges, and prioritize accordingly. Furthermore, supporting information which can connect between the small number of city population and low tax revenue should be given. Without such persuasive evidences mentioned above, this argument is still logically unconvincing.