GMAT Essays (AWA)

"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport.Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."



In the preceding statement, the author claims that the goverment should lower the railroad companies's property taxes since he considers that railways spend a large amount on their maintainence as compared with the trucking companies which pay a small portion of highway maintance costs.The author supports the statement by calling the rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of communication.Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premises, and based on solely on the evidence that the author offers , we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstatiate premises.First the author claims that the trucking companies pay only a portion of highway maintainence cost and no property tax on the highway that they use where as the railway spend billions in maintaince. The author fails to consider the fact that in most of the cases the railways comes under the government. Hence, a large portion of the exchequer is devoted for the railways. Furthermore,the author claims rail to be cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. But he ignores the intial cost required to set up railway lines and the number of forest that are cut and people who are displaced.The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack legitimate evidentary support and render his conclusion invalid.

In addition , the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that increase in rail traffic would not require much tax from the taxpayers. But the author fails to give information about how the government will finance the railway project. The government will pay for the more fuel and more rails. Because the government cannot do it all by itself, it will charge people with the higher taxes. The author weakens his argument by making assumption and failing to provide clear explication.

While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions , that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can strengthen his argument by giving more information on how much is spend on the maintainence of both highway and railways? What percentage of the maintainence cost is paid by the trucking companies. Though there are several issues with the reasoning of author, he couls improve his argument significantly.

In conclusion the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptioons that render his conclusion invalid. If author truely hopes to change his reader's minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure the argument, and provide support. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.