GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi,

I am in need of some urgent help. My GMAT is in 20 days and I haven't prepared anything on AWA thinking that it is not all that important but now I am getting nervous about it. I am not getting a good score on AWA Rater - an online tool.

Can someone please rate my essay, help me how to improve without spending much time. Help will greatly appreciated.

Ok, here's the essay-

Prompt:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro."

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.

Answer:
In the passage presented, the author of the editorial section argues that it will be better if the people of San Peredito voted out Montaya and relected Varro as the mayor of their city. This is based on the premise that during Montaya's term the population of the city has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased while during Varro's terms these trends had shown the opposite trend. However, on deeper analysis, it becomes apparent that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of questionable assumptions and logical flaws.

One such flaw is that the argument assumes a causal relationship which is not substatiated. The argument means to imply that the reason in the population decline and increase in unemployment rates is the change in the mayor of the city. The argument fails to take into consideration that there might be several external factors, such as a recession or a drought during the season, which might more appropriately explain the problems. These external factors are not controllable by the mayor. In order to strengthen the argument, the author should try to make a comparative study, by means of data from credible sources such as surveys or economic reports, to show that the general economic atmosphere has remained similar during Montoya's terms and that there has not been any natural calamaties which might have affected the economy and population.

Moreover, the argument is incorrectly based on the assumption that the decison on whether a change in the mayor is warranted is based entirely on only two metrics: population trend and unemployment trend. This makes the argument a weak case. From intuition, we know that a mayor's job entails several things: improving basic services and infrastructure, cleaning up the city so as to improve hygiene, etc. All of these factors go into making a decision whether the mayor's term has been effective. To overcome this flaw, the argument should compare the terms of Montaya and Varro on a number of things, which are important to the people of the city. This comparison will give a clearer picture to understand the effectiveness of the two mayors.
 
The author of the argument also wrongly concludes that re-electing Varro would magically solve the problems of population decline and increase in the unemployment rates. The argument makes no attempt, whatsoever, to find the actual causes of these problems. As stated in the first paragraph, these factors are affected by external conditions which may not be controllable. Simply put, without understanding the causes of the problems, making the assumption that re-electing Varro would solve the problems makes for a weak case. To render the argument more valid and logically sound, the argument should dig deeper into the real issue: what caused these problems. These causes will help us, to a great extent, to compare the effectiveness of Varro's and Montaya's terms more comprehensively.

After closer examination of the passage presented, it becomes clear that there are several logical flaws. The recommendations in the essay show how the argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound.