GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in the opinion section of a national newsmagazine:
"To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion. (used with permission from mba.com)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument states that the government should raise the price of the postage stamps to increase the revenue, but the argument does not consider the negative effects of this plan or does not consider other options of increasing the revenue. So this argument is flawed.

First, the argument states that price of postal stamps be increased, but does not say by how much. What if the the price is doubled? This might actually decrease the revenue even further because majority of the postal services' customers might choose other options such as, private postal services. Second, increasing the price of the postage stamps is not the only way to increase the revenue. Instead, the government can introduce new services in the postal service such as international postal service, currency exchange etc. Finally, The argument states that price increase will reduce the volume of mail thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved morale. New trainees/interns/part timers can be hired to reduce the strain on the existing system without reducing the revenue of the postal service.

For these reasons, the argument is not sound or convincing. If the above given points are addressed, the argument will become sound and convincing.

Your argument is easy to follow and does not have too many mistakes, yet it is a bit short. I would have to say that the length would bring this one down to approximately a 5.0. It just needs to be a bit longer to earn a 5.5 or 6.0.

Your conclusion is quite short as well. Also, I am not sure that you need to say that the argument will become sound and convincing. Maybe this is just my opinion, but this argument is badly flawed, and even if the points that you bring up are addressed I am not sure it becomes sound and convincing.

Here are some things that you could address to increase the length. I will start with the biggest point by far and one that you will want to look for in other AWA prompts.

1) They claim two advantages to raising the price of stamps: first, they will make more revenue (this makes sense if you assume that the flow of mail will remain the same). secondly, the strain on the system will be reduced due to the lower volume of mail. This is crazy, right? These two things are opposed to each other. You either make more money or decrease the volume of mail. Now perhaps there is some perfect balance where they double the price of stamps and this results in 25% less volume and slightly more revenue. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO PROVE!!!! You do not have to prove that the plan will not work, you just need to indicate, as I have above that lower volumes and more money are not likely to both occur together. Then you state that they have given you no evidence that this plan will have the perfect outcome.

2) The second thing I would point out is that the "deterioration of the postal service" is a pretty big general statement with no evidence or details. What is this so-called deterioration?

In the United States the postal service is said to be losing money. Yet, this is an illusion created by a U.S. law that applies only to the US Postal Service requiring an extreme funding of pensions for something like 50 years from this date. This gives the impression that the postal service is failing. It is a clever trick by those who do not want anyone to know that the government can be very effective in delivering services.

I mention this not because you would write about it, but to point out that you should be asking WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE DETERIORATION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE?" What is the evidence for this. Remember that this APPEARED IN THE OPINION SECTION OF THE NEWSPAPER!!! Maybe the person who wrote it works for a rival service and wants to destroy the post office by having the prices of stamps increased.

3) Why is there a strain on the existing system? The assumption is that the strain is based on volume. But it might be based on inefficient process. Where is the revue of practices to see if the system can be made more efficient.


Principles to Remember, 1) that the BURDEN is on the author of the argument, not on you! You can just ask questions you do not need to PROVE that something is wrong. 2) Focus on business principles like supply and demand, revenues vs profits, etc. 3) QUESTION EVERYTHING - anything that they have not proven is an assumption and you can point that out.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Your argument is easy to follow and does not have too many mistakes, yet it is a bit short. I would have to say that the length would bring this one down to approximately a 5.0. It just needs to be a bit longer to earn a 5.5 or 6.0.

Your conclusion is quite short as well. Also, I am not sure that you need to say that the argument will become sound and convincing. Maybe this is just my opinion, but this argument is badly flawed, and even if the points that you bring up are addressed I am not sure it becomes sound and convincing.

Here are some things that you could address to increase the length. I will start with the biggest point by far and one that you will want to look for in other AWA prompts.

1) They claim two advantages to raising the price of stamps: first, they will make more revenue (this makes sense if you assume that the flow of mail will remain the same). secondly, the strain on the system will be reduced due to the lower volume of mail. This is crazy, right? These two things are opposed to each other. You either make more money or decrease the volume of mail. Now perhaps there is some perfect balance where they double the price of stamps and this results in 25% less volume and slightly more revenue. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO PROVE!!!! You do not have to prove that the plan will not work, you just need to indicate, as I have above that lower volumes and more money are not likely to both occur together. Then you state that they have given you no evidence that this plan will have the perfect outcome.

2) The second thing I would point out is that the "deterioration of the postal service" is a pretty big general statement with no evidence or details. What is this so-called deterioration?

In the United States the postal service is said to be losing money. Yet, this is an illusion created by a U.S. law that applies only to the US Postal Service requiring an extreme funding of pensions for something like 50 years from this date. This gives the impression that the postal service is failing. It is a clever trick by those who do not want anyone to know that the government can be very effective in delivering services.

I mention this not because you would write about it, but to point out that you should be asking WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE DETERIORATION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE?" What is the evidence for this. Remember that this APPEARED IN THE OPINION SECTION OF THE NEWSPAPER!!! Maybe the person who wrote it works for a rival service and wants to destroy the post office by having the prices of stamps increased.

3) Why is there a strain on the existing system? The assumption is that the strain is based on volume. But it might be based on inefficient process. Where is the revue of practices to see if the system can be made more efficient.


Principles to Remember, 1) that the BURDEN is on the author of the argument, not on you! You can just ask questions you do not need to PROVE that something is wrong. 2) Focus on business principles like supply and demand, revenues vs profits, etc. 3) QUESTION EVERYTHING - anything that they have not proven is an assumption and you can point that out.

Thanks a lot David!!!
This helps:)