Hi,
As a foreigner, I'm preparing to "beat " the GMAT, but I need to work hard to do that. So to prepare myself for the D day I worked this morning on my first essay.
If anyone could give me his/her opinion,
Thanks
T.
"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."
Discuss how logically persuasive you find the argunment. In presenting your point of view, analyse the sort of reasoning used and its supporting evidence,. Ina addition, state what further evidence would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.
"
The main argument presented by the author is that in India, because of the rule system, things get done more quickly than in Japan, where people need to collaborate to solve a problem.
This argument is not convincing enough to me because it does not present the results of those choices, so we cannot take any conclusion from this statement. For example, are the choices made by the rule system more efficient? Can we conclude that those choices are not only quicker, but also wiser? This is the kind of question we cannot answer by reading this argument.
Also, all the situations cannot be described in a rule system. Therefore a rule system looks like a traditional system that drive people to the same conclusions when they’re facing the same kind of situations. It does not allow any innovation. We can compare the two nations: Japan is known as an innovative nation. On the other hand, India is traditionnaly known as a very efficient country in less innovative industries. This is evolving a lot in the last decade: we see more and more innovative indian companies but I assume that the decision making process in those companies is not a rule system, but more a western style process.
My opinion is that there are different levels of decisions, and different ways to take those decisions. The two examples, if true, are quite excessive and the reality is between those two opposite. For example, by living in a society, or working in a company, there are always rules that must be followed, and each one of us knows what to do in certain circumstances. But when we’re facing new situations, or when we have to take important decisions (business, personnal), we often need to consult other people. So to me both attitudes are relevant, it’s just a matter of what kind of decision should be taken.
"
As a foreigner, I'm preparing to "beat " the GMAT, but I need to work hard to do that. So to prepare myself for the D day I worked this morning on my first essay.
If anyone could give me his/her opinion,
Thanks
T.
"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."
Discuss how logically persuasive you find the argunment. In presenting your point of view, analyse the sort of reasoning used and its supporting evidence,. Ina addition, state what further evidence would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.
"
The main argument presented by the author is that in India, because of the rule system, things get done more quickly than in Japan, where people need to collaborate to solve a problem.
This argument is not convincing enough to me because it does not present the results of those choices, so we cannot take any conclusion from this statement. For example, are the choices made by the rule system more efficient? Can we conclude that those choices are not only quicker, but also wiser? This is the kind of question we cannot answer by reading this argument.
Also, all the situations cannot be described in a rule system. Therefore a rule system looks like a traditional system that drive people to the same conclusions when they’re facing the same kind of situations. It does not allow any innovation. We can compare the two nations: Japan is known as an innovative nation. On the other hand, India is traditionnaly known as a very efficient country in less innovative industries. This is evolving a lot in the last decade: we see more and more innovative indian companies but I assume that the decision making process in those companies is not a rule system, but more a western style process.
My opinion is that there are different levels of decisions, and different ways to take those decisions. The two examples, if true, are quite excessive and the reality is between those two opposite. For example, by living in a society, or working in a company, there are always rules that must be followed, and each one of us knows what to do in certain circumstances. But when we’re facing new situations, or when we have to take important decisions (business, personnal), we often need to consult other people. So to me both attitudes are relevant, it’s just a matter of what kind of decision should be taken.
"
