GMAT Essays (AWA)

Thanks in advance. First essay is issue, second is argument.


ESSAY QUESTION:
"Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company."

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

YOUR RESPONSE:
I don't agree with the above opinion. While certain employees may perform better under the described circumstances, the issue is far too complex to be answered in such absolute manner. Various factors need to be analyzed and addressed.

Firstly, there are certain companies and industries in which employees should simply not be given this type of free reign. Finance stands out as one such industry. Allowing an employee to determine the scope of his own role within an investment bank could be a compliance or reputational concern. Law enforcement stands out as another such sector, for similar reasons. On the other hand, some smaller companies may stand to benefit from such an arrangement. As long as no confidentiality or compliance issues would be breached in doing so, allowing employees to determine the boundaries of their roles could be a catalyst for positive change.

Additionally, employee function needs to be discussed. Not all roles are created equally, and such an arrangement can have a different impact on different types of employee. The author's opinion may be true, for instance, with regard to certain types of sales people within a firm. Conversely, those who perform controlling or auditory functions may require distinct boundaries in order to perform efficiently.

The author needs to tighten the scope of her original statement or switch to a more moderate stance in order to broaden its applicability.





ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:

“Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”

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.

YOUR RESPONSE:
The above passage contains several flaws in reasoning. In particular, there are questionable assumptions and inferences made by the author that are not addressed.

Firstly, the author seems to assume that there is a perfect correlation between medical technology and life expectancy. Though a significant correlation may exist, the author should consider offsetting factors. As life expectancy increases, it's possible that overpopulation could cause an increase in violent crime, or sanitary/environmental issues. Moreover, overpopulation could put a strain on the medical industry itself.

Secondly, the implied jump in life expectancy from 80 years to 90 years appears arbitrary. If it is founded on concrete evidence, the author should at least briefly discuss this evidence. A line graph might be useful for this purpose.

Finally, the author should explore the life expectancy across other nations in order to compare trends. Though the reader may only be concerned with the life expectancy of Americans, there could important information to be extracted from such comparison. If another nation's medical industry has been historically comparable to America's, conflicting life expectancy trends could seriously weaken the argument.

The author should consider the above issues, and revise the passage in order to address them, strengthening his overall argument.