GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in a memorandum from the human resources department of Diversified Manufacturing:

"Managers at our central office report that their employees tend to be most productive in the days immediately preceding a vacation. To help counteract our declining market share, we could increase the productivity of our professional staff members, who currently receive four weeks paid vacation a year, by limiting them to a maximum of one week's continuous vacation time. They will thus take more vacation breaks during a year and give us more days of maximum productivity."


The argument above is given by the human resource department in a memorandum. The memorandum states that it has been reported by the managers that their employees tend to be most productive immediately preceding the vacation. Hence in order to counteract the declining market share and increase productivity of the staff members the human resource department suggests the decrease in the four weeks paid vacation to one week paid vacation. They support their viewpoint by stating that since their is a decrease in the planned vacation hence the staff member would take more vacation break during a year and hence the company would be profited with more productive days. The Human Resource department here assumes two basic things: Firstly a direct correlation of the Productivity with the Employee Vacation and secondly, the decrease in paid leave from 4 week to 1 week for sure to increase the employee productivity. These assumption suffers from basic flaw in reasoning which can be described in detail in following paragraphs:

Firstly, the Human resource department tries to portray a direct relationship between Employee productivity and the Vacations that a employee is entitled to take. If we look at this scenario and go by the words of the Human resource department, then if employee productivity is related to vacations then of course decrease in vacation plan might have a negative impact on the employee productivity as well. The employee might not be very motivated to work and thus the company may see an overall decrease in the productivity.

Secondly, the Human Resource department has just given a suggestion on the basic of the managers observation. But nowhere this observation is supported by any fact or figures. Moreover The managers who have reported this issue may be a small sample set compared to the whole company. Thus the department fails to justify its standpoint in absence of any facts and figures.

Next, for any employee when they go for any planned vacation then they generally tend to wrap up their work as much as possible, which may be observed by these managers as increase in productivity, Now if these same employees are entitled for only one week of paid leave and even if they are allowed for more no of leaves during a year then they may not work as heavily as they would have if they would have gone for vacation. Unlike the Staff member, who go for long vacations,trying to finish as much as their work, these staff members, who go for short vacations may not work as hard. They may have in mind that they are taking a leave for a day or two and hence may not be burdened to complete the task.

Thus in conclusion , it can be suggested that the arguments put forward by the human resource department is weakly reasoned. The Department has ignored top look at the other side of the scenario as decrease in employee moral because of cut down in planned vacation, less enthusiasm among workers to finish their work when they go for short vacations compared to enthusiasm when they go for long vacations, etc. In absence of consideration of these points the Departements suggestion is weakly structured.

Hey Nidhi, Nicely written article. I just have one question though. I am somehow having this impression , that, the argument never states that there would be a decline in the number of paid vacation weeks from four to one. The HR is in fact suggesting to split the vacation into chunks of one week each. Did you think that way ?

Hi Ani,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

Actually Currently i am working and i am not entitled to take a continuous 4 weeks paid leave. We can take these leaves subdivided into 4 parts of one week at max. So i just reasoned it that way.

And yes of course, i have one request to u.

My GMAT is on 26th Oct 2013.

I am planning to write one AWA each for the next 4 days. It would be very helpful if u can Rate it and let me know my pitfalls at least for this week.

Would wait for a reply. and will post my today's AWA by night.

Again, Thanks a lot in advance

nidhi.mba14 wrote:Hi Ani,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

Actually Currently i am working and i am not entitled to take a continuous 4 weeks paid leave. We can take these leaves subdivided into 4 parts of one week at max. So i just reasoned it that way.

And yes of course, i have one request to u.

My GMAT is on 26th Oct 2013.

I am planning to write one AWA each for the next 4 days. It would be very helpful if u can Rate it and let me know my pitfalls at least for this week.

Would wait for a reply. and will post my today's AWA by night.

Again, Thanks a lot in advance

Hi Nidhi,

Best of luck for your GMAT.
Do share your experience here on the "I just beat the GMAT" forum.

The following appeared in a memorandum from the business planning department of Avia Airlines:

"Of all the cities in their region, Beaumont and Fletcher are showing the fastest growth in the number of new businesses. Therefore, Avia should establish a commuter route between them as a means of countering recent losses on its main passenger routes. And to make the commuter route more profitable from the outset, Avia should offer a 1/3 discount on tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Unlike tickets bought earlier, discount tickets will be nonrefundable, and so gain from their sale will be greater."

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. (used with permission from mba.com)



The above arguments are presented in a memorandum from the Business Planning department of Avia Airlines. The above arguments states that in order to increase the airlines profit and offset the losses suffered by the airline from its main passenger route, the airline should establish a commuter route between Beaumont and Fletcher, which are the fastest growing Business Centers. Moreover the airlines also plans to offer 1/3 discount on the tickets purchased within two days of the flight along with a nonrefundable tickets for such cases. this will increase the sale of the airline to a greater extent. While the airlines claim is not without substance its is poorly reasoned on part of the Airlines.

Firstly, The Airlines assumes that the growing new business at Beaumont and Fletcher will surely help it to improve its profit Margin. The author has not given enough evidences to substantiate his claim. This brings about a very important question which remains unanswered in the premise provided the airlines department. How and Why does it believes that the passengers will take its Flight to travel to these new Business Hub? It can be that these new cities are growing in Business internally and do not require air travel. Then of course the author fails in proving his point. Thus a lack of evidence about why the author believes that the new growing Business will help the airline leaves the Premise unjustified.

Next, The author assumes that losses on its main passenger route can be offset by the introduction of this new commuter route. While the Authors claim may be true but it does not have to be true. The first question which comes to the mind of a reader is why is the airline operating in losses in the main passenger Route? It could be that the Facilities offered by the airline, its operating, its infrastructure or its timing may not be well appreciated by the customers. If any of the above reasons be true then there is no reason for the author to assume that the new route will help it recover the losses. Even if the Airline starts operating in new route and does not check for the reasons for it was going in losses, this new route may also bring in losses for the Airline. Thus we can see that the author's assumption is poorly reasoned as he assumes that all other factors for the airline is fine and only with the growth in new business route will help it to recover the losses.

Next, the author discusses about giving 1/3 discount for the Tickets bought within two days and also unlike tickets bought earlier , discounts ticket will be nonrefundable. While the author may be overtly optimistic about increase in sale but it can also offset the sale if we try to look from Passengers point of view. The passenger may not be will to buy these kind of tickets as they may suffer loss because of these plans.


Thus In summary, it can be seen that the author presents a poorly reasoned premises and unsubstantiated argument before its readers. If the author could have given more information about the reasons of his believe in the premises and arguments then he could have justified his standpoint to a greater extent. In absence of these the above arguments are poorly justified.