GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi Experts,

Can you please rate my essays as I am going to take GMAT this week. I would be really thankful.

Argument 1: "When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore,
the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such
centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all
employees."

Essay: The argument claims that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and help company maintain better supervision of all employees. The argument is stated in a way that it fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence provided.

Firstly, the argument assumes that by closing the field offices, the company will be as profitable as it was in the past without considering the current market conditions, which could be so different now that if a thorough analysis is not done then it can prove fatal for the company. For example, there could be many competitors now for Appogee company at the place where it was previously centralized, and again centralizing the company there will exponentially increase the competition for the company without the certainty of demand for the company's products and services unless the company's products are best. Investment in making products better could be so high that it can curb the profits that the company is targeting. Also, centralization will decrease the scope of serving to larger area. Clearly the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the current market situation.

Secondly, the argument fails to assume the cost the company will bear in executing the closure operations at different locations both at monetary level and at resource level. For example, the costs associated with moving whole setups from one location to another and setup new office at one location with obviously very large area could be very high. Though these high costs could be somehow bearable compromising the short term profits, the loss that the company would bear as a result of expertise loss as many trained employees not willing to move along with the company will leave the jobs will definitely hamper the company's targeted profits even in the long run. If the argument would have considered this possibility then it would have been more reliable in it's conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing, and needs serious consideration.


Argument 2: "Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in
the recent recession, Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of
the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region's manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios
is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of
innovative technologies."

Essay: The argument claims that even in the recent recession, Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average, stated in a way that the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if Helios has provided more employment in the past then it will surely continue the same trend in future too, without considering the several factors that remained in favor of Helios since long but do not provide the surety of being same in future as well. For example, the population of Helios: there is a possibility that the ratio of population to the number of jobs available at Helios in the past have been lower as compared to number of jobs available, but there is no clear evidence that it will remain same in future also. In addition, the argument also states that Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies, and this could bring in a huge influx of skilled and non-skilled labor to the Helios that it would be difficult to provide jobs at the current rate. Clearly, the argument fails to consider the consequences of several factors and assumes just the benefits.

Secondly, the argument claims that Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location, suggesting that it would be beneficial for any organization to setup it's business in Helios, without taking into account the nature of corporations that are flourishing. For example, manufacturing industry is flourishing in Helios because of several factors such as high demand for it's services, easy availability of raw materials, low operating costs, but argument does not state that all these factors would be same for any other industry also. So, the claim that Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location is very week and unsupported. If the argument had provided evidence that any type of industry would definitely flourish operating in Helios than the argument would have been more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts.


Argument 3: "Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has
declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of
The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract
more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper."

Essay: The argument claims that the best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The claim is stated in such a way that it fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that reducing the prices lower that the price of Bugle will bring more people to buy the Mercury without considering the other factors due to which the circulation probably has gone down. For Example - the quality of content that Bugle produces could be more convincing and attracting as compared to that of Mercury. Clearly, if this is the case then reducing the price below that of Bugle will not help to achieve the intended goals. The argument could have been more clearer if it explicitly stated the actual reason of loss rather than assuming the factors for the loss.

Secondly, the argument claims that the increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. This is again a very week claim as the argument does not considers the effects of reducing prices on the current circulation level of Mercury and just assumes the benefits of a certain move. To illustrate, the argument fails to consider that if the prices are reduced then the revenue generated will be less and at current cost the profits, if any, will be very low and at very low profits it could become a fight for survival for Mercury as in an effort to increase profits, the company will try to reduce costs and to achieve this the company will have to compromise with certain components such as Printing material, High Quality paper, content of news, etc., which instead of attracting more businesses will play a role in decreasing the number of current buyers and that could ultimately worsen the situation. If the argument had provided the evidence that the Mercury has backed up it's plan of reducing prices then the argument would have been more convincing.

Finally, the argument fails to answer an important question - Has the decline stated in the argument occurred in a certain region or nationwide? The answer to this question is important as it will allow to get on the conclusion that what resulted in the decline. For example - if the decline has occurred in a certain region than there could be factors other than the price such as changing political views of population of a certain region, not aligning with the views stated in the Mercury, etc. that could result the decline. Without answer to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion the argument is flawed for the above - mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.