-
Kevinst
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:57 am
- Thanked: 11 times
- Followed by:6 members
I so far mainly focused my preparation on IR, Quant and Verbal. After reading ARCO's "GMAT ANSWERS - to the real essay questions", I tried to tackle my first AWA today. Please rate it so I can get a feel, how much more time I should dedicate for AWA in the last remaining 10 days.
Question:
"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."
Reponse:
The author of the argument concludes that the residents of San Perdito were served best, if Montoya gets voted out of office while Varro gets reelected. The line of reasoning is that since the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased while Montoya has served as a mayor, and the population had increased while the unemployment rate had decreased with Varro in charge, a reelection of Varro would have the best outcome for the residents of San Perdito. This argument is not very convincing as stated as it suffers from several critical flaws.
First of all, the argument depends on the oversimplifying assumption that the change in population and unemployment are directly correlated with the mayor in charge. Consequently it is assumed that Montoya directly caused an increase in the unemployment rate and a decrease in the population while Varro was directly responsible for decreasing the unemployment rate and increasing the population. However, there is no evidence given that would proof this direct cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, the change in unemployment rate and population might as well just have been caused by the global economy, which is only marginally influenced by the mayor of San Perdito. Moreover, the possibility that the mentioned changes might not be immediate effects, but rather delayed effects of the ruling of a mayor would indicate, that Varro not only had no influence, but also a bad influence on the unemployment rate and population.
Secondly, by mentioning that the residents of San Perdito were served best if Varro gets reelected, the argument makes the flawed assumption, that a low unemployment rate and a high population are the only factors that play a significant role in determining how well a population is doing. However, it is quite possible that Varro's ruling caused severe trouble for the residents. One can imagine, that Varro did not invest in education, subdued the people, did not respect the constitution, was involved in serious political scandals or harmed the residents of the city in other possible ways that would outbalance the positive impact of a low unemployment rate.
Finally, while a low unemployment rate admittedly usually benefits the residents of a city, the same is not necessarily valid for a high population. High populations might cause house prices to increase as common sense suggests that bigger populations result in a stronger demand in the housing market. This, in turn, usually does at least not benefit all residents of a city, as many of them will have to pay higher rents or higher prices for houses.
In conclusion, the argument is not very convincing as it fails to provide sufficient evidence for the direct cause-and-effect relationship between the unemployment rate and population on the one side, and the ruling mayor on the other side. Moreover, the argument would be more convincing if it provided evidence that a judgment about how well the residents of a city are served can solely be based on the unemployment rate and population.
Thank you so much for your time!
Kevin
Question:
"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."
Reponse:
The author of the argument concludes that the residents of San Perdito were served best, if Montoya gets voted out of office while Varro gets reelected. The line of reasoning is that since the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased while Montoya has served as a mayor, and the population had increased while the unemployment rate had decreased with Varro in charge, a reelection of Varro would have the best outcome for the residents of San Perdito. This argument is not very convincing as stated as it suffers from several critical flaws.
First of all, the argument depends on the oversimplifying assumption that the change in population and unemployment are directly correlated with the mayor in charge. Consequently it is assumed that Montoya directly caused an increase in the unemployment rate and a decrease in the population while Varro was directly responsible for decreasing the unemployment rate and increasing the population. However, there is no evidence given that would proof this direct cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, the change in unemployment rate and population might as well just have been caused by the global economy, which is only marginally influenced by the mayor of San Perdito. Moreover, the possibility that the mentioned changes might not be immediate effects, but rather delayed effects of the ruling of a mayor would indicate, that Varro not only had no influence, but also a bad influence on the unemployment rate and population.
Secondly, by mentioning that the residents of San Perdito were served best if Varro gets reelected, the argument makes the flawed assumption, that a low unemployment rate and a high population are the only factors that play a significant role in determining how well a population is doing. However, it is quite possible that Varro's ruling caused severe trouble for the residents. One can imagine, that Varro did not invest in education, subdued the people, did not respect the constitution, was involved in serious political scandals or harmed the residents of the city in other possible ways that would outbalance the positive impact of a low unemployment rate.
Finally, while a low unemployment rate admittedly usually benefits the residents of a city, the same is not necessarily valid for a high population. High populations might cause house prices to increase as common sense suggests that bigger populations result in a stronger demand in the housing market. This, in turn, usually does at least not benefit all residents of a city, as many of them will have to pay higher rents or higher prices for houses.
In conclusion, the argument is not very convincing as it fails to provide sufficient evidence for the direct cause-and-effect relationship between the unemployment rate and population on the one side, and the ruling mayor on the other side. Moreover, the argument would be more convincing if it provided evidence that a judgment about how well the residents of a city are served can solely be based on the unemployment rate and population.
Thank you so much for your time!
Kevin
