-
crackgmat007
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:690
Comments & feedback for improvement are most welcome. Tx.
QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration.”
MY RESPONSE:
Speaker concludes that moratorium on further immigration need to be imposed to protect the local economy. To support his conclusion, speaker provides statistics of decline in average compensation over the past 5 years. It appears to me that the argument is not convincing for the following reasons.
First, speaker seems to assume a positive coorelation based on sequence of events. He assumes that decline in wages is due to inflow of immigrant workers into the local community. It may be the case that wages have declined due to several other reasons such as reduction in prices by competetors. In order to be competetitve, businesses in the community may have opted for cheap labour. Without any evidence confirming that the events are tied together and that immigrant population was the cause for decline in wages, speaker cannot assume causation.
Secondly, speaker doesn't provide any evidence that there are no other causes for the decline in wages. It may be the case that there were other causes that forced companies to reduce wages. For example, in recession, businesses cut down production, reduce wages and opt for several ways for survival. Without any evidence ruling out that all other likely causes were investigated and that other causes were not responsible for decline in wages, speaker cannot make his argument convincing.
Third, speaker outrightly states that moratorium need to be imposed. He doesn't seem to consider positive contributions, if any, of immigrant popultation. It may be the case that the talent pool in the community may not be adequate to cater the local needs. If moratorium were imposed, it would act as a deterrant for furthering the economy. Moratorium would be counterproductive rather than protecting the local economy. For example, Microsoft Corporation continuously presses the US government to increase the H1B quota so that talent from across the globe can be hired for the benefit of the company and the country at large. Speaker doesn't seem to to consider positive contributions, if any, of the immigrants.
In sum, the argument as it stands is not convincing. To strengthen it, speaker need to include evidence as stated above. By doing so, speaker would not only bolster his argument but also make it convincing and persuasive.
QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration.”
MY RESPONSE:
Speaker concludes that moratorium on further immigration need to be imposed to protect the local economy. To support his conclusion, speaker provides statistics of decline in average compensation over the past 5 years. It appears to me that the argument is not convincing for the following reasons.
First, speaker seems to assume a positive coorelation based on sequence of events. He assumes that decline in wages is due to inflow of immigrant workers into the local community. It may be the case that wages have declined due to several other reasons such as reduction in prices by competetors. In order to be competetitve, businesses in the community may have opted for cheap labour. Without any evidence confirming that the events are tied together and that immigrant population was the cause for decline in wages, speaker cannot assume causation.
Secondly, speaker doesn't provide any evidence that there are no other causes for the decline in wages. It may be the case that there were other causes that forced companies to reduce wages. For example, in recession, businesses cut down production, reduce wages and opt for several ways for survival. Without any evidence ruling out that all other likely causes were investigated and that other causes were not responsible for decline in wages, speaker cannot make his argument convincing.
Third, speaker outrightly states that moratorium need to be imposed. He doesn't seem to consider positive contributions, if any, of immigrant popultation. It may be the case that the talent pool in the community may not be adequate to cater the local needs. If moratorium were imposed, it would act as a deterrant for furthering the economy. Moratorium would be counterproductive rather than protecting the local economy. For example, Microsoft Corporation continuously presses the US government to increase the H1B quota so that talent from across the globe can be hired for the benefit of the company and the country at large. Speaker doesn't seem to to consider positive contributions, if any, of the immigrants.
In sum, the argument as it stands is not convincing. To strengthen it, speaker need to include evidence as stated above. By doing so, speaker would not only bolster his argument but also make it convincing and persuasive.
