Please Rate My AWA Essay: Issue Question

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:26 pm
Thanked: 8 times
GMAT Score:750

Please Rate My AWA Essay: Issue Question

by Random Wok » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:27 am
ESSAY QUESTION:
"People should be strictly prohibited from using their cellular phones in public places where their conversations could disturb others: on the bus, at a restaurant, or in a museum."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

YOUR RESPONSE:
Cell phones have been around for so long that most people in industrialized nations own one. Since cell phone usage has become so prevalent, many people have become concerned about the distractions they cause to the public world and are considering bans against the use of cell phones. Although cell phones can definitely be annoying, banning their use from public locations would be a bad idea, creating safety issues and potentially dampening one's experience at a venue.

The most obvious problem with banning cell phone use in public places is that it greatly hampers your ability to contact needed authorities in case of an emergency. Consider the case of a bus equipped with a signal modifier that prevents incoming and outgoing cell phone calls. If that bus, full of passengers, were to be stranded on a deserted highway, there would be no way for the people there to reach out for help. The passengers on the bus could be stranded for days. This would be even worse if a passenger developed a health condition that needed to be treated by a doctor. Despite the annoyances of loud ringtones and distracting conversations, cell phone use still provides one invaluable trait: it can allows you to quickly call out for help and potentially save lives.

Cell phones can also make your experience with a locale much more interactive. For example, a few months ago, I decided to visit a museum. I saw an art piece and wanted to learn more about it. When I looked down at the description of the art piece, there was actually a barcode I could scan with my cell phone to learn more about the art. When I scanned the barcode, I was immediately linked to a website that gave me more information and context than I could have possibly received without my phone. This was a very unique experience that could not have been provided if I was prohibited from using my cell phone. Since most public venues are in favor of updating and improving the interaction level of their locations, taking away cell phones would not be a good idea.

Cell phone use was once considered a luxury that only a few people were able to afford. Now that almost everyone has a cell phone, its widespread use has become a problem for some people. While we should should definitely restrict certain aspects of cell phone use, such as loud ringtones, banning cell phone usage completely would be a technological step backwards and not in the best interests of our people.
Source: — GMAT Essays (AWA) |

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:11 am
Location: Gurgaon

by priyankas_rai » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:00 pm
Hey all,

Please rate my essays..sitting for GMAT in a few days..suggestions welcome and needed :)

Analysis of Issue

Prompt: "Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."

Essay::

It is necessary for an organization to take care of the monetary needs and aspirations of all employees, whether he/she is a manager or a laborer. Linking the salary of a corporate executive to that of his lowest paid employee can be overall detrimental for an organization.

Senior managers provide direction to a company. It is therefore of utmost importance to keep them satisfied. A wrong decision by a senior manager can have more serious repurcussions than that by a low level employee. This is same as saying that brain is the most important part of the body. If brain is not working properly, then body will malfunction, even though the body might be in best of health otherwise.

Though I agree to the point that managers should be well integrated to the workforce, yet the way suggested in the statement above is not logical. There are many other ways in which a manager or corporate executive can improve relations with workers such as by organizing family events, periodic grievance meetings, complaint box or regular feedback. Any other way which impedes the work satisfaction of any employee, be it senior or junior, should be avoided.

A local construction company, C&C, recently implemented the plan in which the total bonus of the construction supervisor was linked to his workers attendance and productivity and thus, indirectly to the timely completion of the project at hand. This resulted in undue pressure on the supervisors and they acted in unethical fashion to meet their goals. The workers were not allowed any leaves, were penalized heavily if they defaulted and no consideration was given to the personal needs of the laborers. This eventually spoiled the work atmosphere and resulted in labor disputes. The plan was eventually repealed. Thus, the plan which was implemeted to foster better relations had quite the opposite effect.

Money is a crucial factor which drives the workforce. Any plan to improve relations between management and laborers should be not be threatening to any side in terms of renumeration or job security. Else, it is likely to have a negative impact.


Analysis of Argument

Prompt: "Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."

Essay::

While it is true that new ideas need freedom to thrive, it is quite extreme to suggest lifting all limits on freedom of expression. Freedom without control can have serious repercussions and can even fail the very objective they were supposed to achieve. The argument simply concludes that unlimited freedom of expression can help generate new ideas. However, the argument fails to address many factors which are necessary to make the it plausible.

Firstly, freedom of expression does not in itself ensure creation of new ideas. Many more factors such as education, political and economic stability, health of citizens, play a crucial role as well. If there is no money to test new ideas, say a scientific hypothesis, then how will the idea take shape? Infrastucture like labs, schools, colleges are required to make a person capable of developing ideas and then to implement them.

Even more important is the need for financial stability of the citizens. Only a fertile and peaceful mind can generate new ideas. A person who is craving for two meals a day cannot be noramally expected to start a wave. Thus, foundation has to be built first to allow the people the freedom to 'have ideas'. The argument has not mentioned any of these factors being taken care of.

Moreover, freedom of expression without limitation can also be detrimental to the society. What people say can hurt the sentiments of others, spoil national integrity, cause communal violence and even put a nation's reputation at stake. This is what happened when Mr L.K Advani, senior leader of BJP, which is a prominent political party in India, made communal speeches in Ayodhya. His speeches were not taken well by Muslim community and it eventually let to Ayodhaya massacre. The need for control or measures to be taken after misuse of freedom have not been mentioned in the argument.

Thus freedom of expression should be practiced with caution. Umlimited freedom, be it any type, can have negative impact. The argument is weak as it does not indicate need for any restraint. It is not supported by any evidence which suggests the ways to tackle the problems which could arise by giving umlimited freedom. If there are serious punishments for misuse of this freedom, then probably people would use hesitate before expoiting the freedom.
Priyanka

• Page 1 of 1