• Get 300+ Practice Questions
25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to $200 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5 Day FREE Trial Study Smarter, Not Harder Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • FREE GMAT Exam Know how you'd score today for$0

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## AWA Feedback on my first attempt

This topic has 0 member replies
quaserti Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
19 Dec 2016
Posted:
2 messages

#### AWA Feedback on my first attempt

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:52 pm
Hey Guys,

After spending a day or so on understanding the AWA, using many resources from this page, I decided to give it my first attempt. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, and would be more than happy to give my own feedback to your essay in exchange! I'm particularly interested in how you would improve the essay, anything you would add in/remove, and if perhaps I could have made the same points in a more effective manner.

Thank you!!!

________
ESSAY

"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

The argument claims that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid as the risk of physical injury on the job increases, and that therefore it makes financial sense for employers to improve the safety of the workplace in order to save on payroll. This argument is unsubstantiated, makes two crucial assumptions, and fails to consider several key factors. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the claim that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid to those working jobs with higher risks of injury is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if it were true, an employer will not necessarily actually pay higher wages just because employers agree that they should. Indeed, there are many professions, especially in the developing world, which have high risks but a relatively low pay. For example, the workers who are building the stadium for the football/soccer world cup in Qatar in 2020 work in precarious conditions, but are paid next to nothing.

Secondly, the argument makes a crucial logical flaw by stating that a safer workplace makes financial sense because it would lower payroll expenses. This is a weak and unsupported claim which relies on the implicit assumption that the costs of improving the safety of the workplace would be outweighed by the potential savings on payroll. In fact, the author overlooks the existence of such costs altogether. While it may be true in some cases that a safer workplace makes financial sense, this will depend on the potential savings on wages compared to the costs of improving the workplace.

Finally, the importance of risk of physical injury is vastly different for different professions. For example, it may be plausible that in large factories where there is lots of potentially dangerous machinery, workplace safety is a significant determinant of wages. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that improvements in workplace safety in service firms like PwC would have any impact on the wages that company could pay its employees.

The argument could have been improved in several ways. Firstly, by making a distinction between different types of professions, the argument could have been more convincing by outlining the type of workplaces where risk of physical injury is a significant determinant of wages. Furthermore, the author focuses entirely on payroll expenses to support his assertion; however, there may be other reasons why it may make financial sense for a firm to reduce risk of injury at the office. For example, a safer workplace may lower attrition, thus lower recruiting costs, or improve the happiness of the workers, resulting in a more productive workforce.

In conclusion, the argument has several major flaws, as it fails to take into account important considerations and makes unsubstantiated assumptions, as outlined above. While argument could be improved in a number of ways to make it more thorough and persuasive, as it stands it is weak and unconvincing.

### Top First Responders*

1 GMATGuruNY 66 first replies
2 Jay@ManhattanReview 64 first replies
3 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 33 first replies
4 Brent@GMATPrepNow 21 first replies
5 Jeff@TargetTestPrep 6 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

### Most Active Experts

1 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

125 posts
2 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

98 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

97 posts
4 Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

91 posts
5 Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

78 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts