GMAT Essays (AWA)

"It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy.
International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world's energy resources
for future generations."
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.



---------------------------------------My response-------------------------------------------------------------


The author states that international leadership and worldwide cooperation are necessary to conserve the world's natural resources.This issue of energy conservation is very relevant in the world today.Although many might disagree with the author, i agree.If we do not conserve the resoucres today nothing would be left for tomorrow.

The primary reason i support the author is that need for energy conservation has to be done on global scale.The conservation of natural resources in few regions would still exhaust the natural resources.For example, China will be the biggest consumer of natural resources in the near future.Even if limit the use of nartural resources in the Europian union, the greart demand across the "Great wall of China" would make big companies,looking to make big profits, feed China.This clealry depicts that it is imperative that we bring togthter everyone if we really want to conserve natural resources.

Second, the economies of the world have just come out of recession and as a result, there is fierce comptetion among nations.Every country wants to come out of the period of slow growth.For intance, the USA & the European union are competeting very badly.There is a fear in the US that the European union will beat the US in terms of recovery as it is showing better growth.In view of the above stated sentiments it would be very difficult to conserve natural ressources as many other countries are competeting in the same manner.

Finally, without any international cooperation, the seller companies would never stop feeding to the demand even if bans are imposed in the countries the companies operate from.TO illustrate this, let consider, India for example.India is the biggest consumer of natural resources after China.If we are unable to get India across the table & convince her to cut down her consumption, conservation effort would not help much in the conservation of resources.The companies operating out of USA, which is willing to limit its consumption, will find ways to sell natural resources to India.

In summary, although arguments could be provided for both the sides of the issue, i feel that international cooperation and International leadership are very important for energy conservation effort to make any real progress.Because of fierce competetion among nations and the global spread of natural resources, it would not be possible to achieve conservation of natural resources.

------------------------------------------Argument-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life.
"Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region's manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.




------------------------------------MY response------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument states that the companies looking for new investment avenues/business oppurtunities should invest in the city of Helios.The author's argument is based on three premises-Helios has had low unemployement rate, has an industrial center of the region & is attracting investments in Research and developtment of innovative technologies.The argument, however, is logically unconvincing as the author makes a number of implicit assumptions in linking the argument with the premises.The following essay will point out the flaws with author' reasoning and suggest ways to improve the argument.

In presenting the argument, the author aassumes that low employement rate in a region indicates the soundness of a econmoic capablility of a region.But the argument fails to consider that, probably, the employment rate of the region did not suffer much becuase of the strigent regulations on different kinds of industries.Maybe, the regional governmnet, in a sense , hampers the business by not allowing companies to invest much in areas not related to the government.Such a region, would be a nightmare for companies.If the author wants to fix this flaw, he must cite evidence to prove that the govenment provides complete autonomy to the companies.

Another assumption that the author makes is that just beacuse the region(Helios) has greater share of manufacturing jobs means that the region would be a good investment for all kinds of firms.Perhaps, the region has a greater share of manufacturing jobs as there not much companies other than manufacturing ones in the region.And the government promotes manufacturing industries by giving tax rebates but these rebates are not applicable to other industries.If author could cite facts to support that all kinds of industries exist in the region & the goverment provides similar tax cuts to all types of industries, the argument would be strengthened.

The author also relies on the assumption that a focus on innovative technologies would make business sense for all kinds of companies.The argument does not address the concern that R&D in innovative technologies involves very large amount of investment by companies.If the majority of companies looking towards are small or mid capital companies,they would be discouraged by this attempt of the regional goverment.

In sum, the argument seems logically sound at the first glance, but it has a number of flaws.The author makes unwarranted assumptions without providing any evidence.If the author wants to convince his readers, he must plug all the gaps between premises and conclusion by provinding relevant proofs.



Experts Please evaluate. I have my test in just 3 days

I'm not an writing expert, so my comments are not absolutely reasonable and considered as a guide. Just for reference only, buddy.
For the 1st task: For the reasons and supports you delivered, I would have given a 4.5. However, due to some grammatical & spelling mistakes, I lowered it to 3.5. I just name a few:

If we do not conserve the resoucres today nothing would be left for tomorrow

"would" should be changed to will, comma needs to be added after "today".

the USA & the European union are competeting very badly

they are competing really badly, aren't they? I think "harshly" will be more appropriated.

If we are unable to get India across the table & convince her to cut down her consumption

Use "its" instead of "her"; India is not a girl

For the 2nd task:
The supports are quite reasonable,however, are a little-short developed. I'll go with 4 or 4.5 for this essay.

Suggestion: take this link to view how a 6 or 5 grade essay looks like.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/essays-liste ... 15646.html

I'm not going to get on you for grammar and spelling, but you really do need to allow yourself at least a minute or two to proofread at the end. It's always worth the time to catch anything that makes your essays harder to read! Sentences should start with capital letters, the personal pronoun "I" should always be capitalized, et cetera.

Your first essay is well-organized and has good examples. Personally, I favor an approach more like what you did in the second one, where the main points of the essay are alluded to in the introduction, expanded in the body, and summarized in the conclusion (you didn't restate them in the conclusion). Otherwise, you did use good marking or "signposting" words to guide the reader. They may feel somehow basic or unsophisticated, but they are critical aids to your audience. Your second example isn't tied as well to your overall point; if you find that happening, concentrate on your other two points and consider devoting a paragraph to setting up the opposing viewpoint and knocking it down.

Your second essay follows the format I believe is clearest. The examples could be fuller, but I realize you have to work with whatever you can think up in the time allotted. I recommend proofreading (again), and filling out the conclusion the way you did the intro (with different words). Not so much that you take time away from your main points, of course.