BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

A compilation of my AWA attempts. Pls comment:)

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

A compilation of my AWA attempts. Pls comment:)

by maisatomai » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:15 pm
Please comment and if possible, give me a score. Thanks in advance.

Question

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder--a radio set that signals a plane's course--in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."

Essay

In the argument above, the author concludes that installing the computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will help tackle the problem of midair plane collisions. The premise of the argument is that the plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that the pilots will always follow the warning system's advice and it assumes that the warning system is always accurate.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that the warning system's advice will be accepted by the pilot. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the pilots have little regards for the warning system and believe in their own skills in navigating the plane. The pilots may not be paying attention to the warning system as they may be engrossed doing other stuffs.

Second, the argument is flawed because it erroneously assumes that the warning system is always accurate and will be able to prevent the collision. There will sure be instances in which the warning system fails and may even results in mid-air collision. Given the fact that machines are unreliable sometimes, the author wrongly assumed that the installation of computerized on-board warning system will virtually eliminate the problem of midair plane collisions.

Finally, the author does not state clearly whether midair plane collisions are all caused by commercial airlines. Will this argument be valid if some of the midair plane collisions are caused by non-commercial planes and these planes do not have computerized on-board warning system installed? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that the pilots will surely follow the warning system's advice and the warning system will function without any error. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that the computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will help tackle the problem of midair plane collisions.
Last edited by maisatomai on Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — GMAT Essays (AWA) |
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Question

"Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper."

Essay

In the argument above, the publisher concludes that in order to get more business to advertise, the businesses need to reduce the price of the paper. The premise of the argument is that The Bugle's low pricing has attracted a lot of customers from The Mercury and The Mercury will need to increase circulation so to attract more businesses to advertise in the paper. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that lowering the price of the paper will attract more readers and it assumes that the increased circulation will cause more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Furthermore, it assumes that the decreased readership is due to competition from The Bugle.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that readers are price-sensitive and will be attracted by cheaper papers. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the readers will not be attracted by the lowered price papers and will still stick to The Bugle. If contents of The Mercury do not relate to readers anymore, it should come as no surprise that fewer people are buying the papers.

Second, the reasoning in the announcement is flawed because it erroneously assumes that increased circulations will lead to more businesses putting up advertising in the paper. There are many other factors other than pricing which determine whether businesses will advertise in the paper. If The Bugle is offering businesses relatively low rates for advertising, it is hard to understand how the businesses will advertise in The Mercury even if they have the same readership.

Finally, the argument incorrectly assumes that the decreased in readership of The Mercury is related to the Bugle. What if the decreased in readership is because more people are turning to the internet for news? What if the decreased in readership is because the quality of The Mercury has dropped and no one is interested to buy the paper anymore, even if it is cheap? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that readers and businesses are price sensitive and the Bugle played an important role in causing The Mercury's readership to decrease. Moreover, the conclusion wrongly concludes that reducing the price of the paper will in turn attract more advertising in the paper.
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:20 pm
Question

"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."

Essay

In the argument above, the author concludes that Olympic Foods will be able to keep costs to the lowest and in turn maximize profits. The premise of the argument is that as organizations learn to work more efficiently, the costs of processing go down. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that color film processing and food processing are similar and it assumes that long experience will surely mean that the company is efficient. Furthermore, it incorrectly assumes that minimize costs will lead to maximize profits.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that color film processing and food processing share the same nature. The author's example about the color film processing is invalid because color film processing is relatively new in the 1970s and therefore it has much room for improvement. However, the food processing has been around for a long time and may not have as much potential for improvement as the color film processing.

Second, the reasoning is flawed because it erroneously assumes that the longer the company is in business, the more efficient it will become. Yet, there are some companies that are in existence for a long time and still not very efficient. Whether or not a company will become more efficient will depend on the management's leadership.

Finally, the author assumes incorrectly that minimizing costs will maximize profit. Minimizing costs and not neglecting innovation may cause sales to decrease and profits to decrease, even if the costs are minimized. Will the company be more efficient in all other areas other than the costs area only?Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that color film processing and food processing share the same business nature and it assumes length of business existence will guarantee efficiency. In addition, it assumes that minimizing costs will lead to greater profit. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that Olympic Food will be able to keep cost down and make as much profit as possible.
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:25 pm
Question

[The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintains better supervision of all employees." Discuss how well reasoned...etc. ]

Essay

In the argument above, the author concludes that the Apogee Company should end all the operations of its field offices and focus its operations in a single location. The premise of the argument is that in the past when the Apogee Company has all operations in one location, it achieved higher profit and centralization of operations would help to cut costs and the Apogee Company would be able to better supervise all its employees. However, the argument is flawed because it incorrectly assumes that past profitability is because of its single location and it assumes that closing down field offices will only reduce its costs. Furthermore, the argument erroneously assumes that the revenue will not be affected by this proposed action.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that the high profitability in the past is because the Apogee Company only operates in a single location. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the Apogee Company is able to earn high profits in the past because they had a competitive advantage in the past. The Apogee Company has since lost the advantage and therefore they are not able to maintain the profitability.

Second, the reasoning is flawed because it erroneously assumes that ending the operations of all its down field offices will reduce its cost. Yet, it is not necessarily true as diversifying the operations can help to save some costs. For example, if the company is diversified in terms of locations, it will be able to save on transportation costs if the nature of the business requires going to customers' house.

Finally, the author incorrectly assumes that closing the other offices will not have any effect on the revenues of the business. Closing the other offices may causes inconvenience to the customers, especially if customers are required to go to the offices. What if customers stop doing patronizing the business because they find it inconvenience to travel to the only location? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that the single location is the reason for the high profitability in the past and it assumes costing down the other offices will reduce costs and not reduce revenue. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that the Apogee Company should terminate all other field offices and operate in only one location.
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:21 pm
Question

In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

Essay

Although the issue of what constitutes optimal censorship is not black and white and some experts believe that there should be little censorship in television and radio programs, I propose that the media should be carefully censored for offensive language and behavior.

First, children may become more violent if they are exposed to offensive language and behavior in the media. The children have a tendency to role model what they see or hear. There are few cases where a child injured or even killed another child when the former modeled what he sees on the television. In one such trial, the child claims that he does not know that hitting his friend will kill him as in the television program, the character did not die. Thus, the censorship board needs to be careful about what the children are exposed to as they are too immature to differentiate between show and reality.

Second, adults may be influenced by these offensive language and behavior in thinking that these are the norms. For example, if an adult watches many instances of domestic violence in the television, he may think hitting his wife is perfectly fine. This will lead to increased instances of domestic violence. Thus, the media should not be allowed to show programs that are extremely offensive in terms of language or behavior.

On the other hand, some may argue that censorship does not go well with human rights, as people should be given a choice to watch any television or listen to any radio program without censorship. However, people should not be given the human rights if doing so will harm society as a whole. For example, there are laws prohibiting people from consuming drugs even if it is to mean a restriction of human rights.

In conclusion, the media should be carefully censored for offensive language and behavior because children may be misled and adults may be negatively influenced. Although some may argue that doing so is a violation of human rights, it is actually not as this issue concerns the society as a whole.
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:33 am
Question

"Education has become the main provider of individual opportunity in our society. Just as property and money once were the keys to success, education has become the element that most ensures success in life.

In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Explain, using reasons and examples based on your own experience, observation, or reading."

Essay

Although the issue of what constitutes success is not black and white and some experts agree on the statement that education has become the most important element to ensure success in life, I do not agree with the above statement because the definition of success varies to different people and a person can still fails in life despite having high education.

First, different people interpret success differently. For example, one may see a guy with a happy family as successful even if he is just earning the median salary. Likewise, a corporate high flyer may be seen as a failure if he has no one to share his success with. If success is not defined by the salary one earns, then education is surely not the most important element to ensure success in life.

Second, a person with high education may not be success in his corporate life. He may be too proud in his workplace because of his high education, and because of that he is not willing to work hard or works as a team as he thinks that his co-workers are not as good as him. In Singapore, there is a case of a scientist who quitted his job and worked as a taxi driver. Even though he has very high education, he still takes up a job which does not require much education.

On the other hand, some may argue that there are no other element that can help ensures success in life more than education does. However, an outstanding character will help ensure that a person will be successful. If a person has outstanding character, he will possess attributes such as the willingness to work hard and being humble. These characteristics are more important in the society.

In conclusion, education is not the most crucial element to ensure success in life because the definition of success is not fixed and people still can fail in life even with a high education. Although some may argue that education is the best element to measure success, they have overlooked more important ones such as the character of a person.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:15 am
Location: London
Thanked: 122 times
Followed by:22 members

by throughmba » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:17 am
maisatomai wrote:Please comment and if possible, give me a score. Thanks in advance.

Question

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder--a radio set that signals a plane's course--in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."

Essay

In the argument above, the author concludes that installing the computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will help tackle the problem of midair plane collisions. The premise of the argument is that the plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that the pilots will always follow the warning system's advice and it assumes that the warning system is always accurate.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that the warning system's advice will be accepted by the pilot. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the pilots have little regards for the warning system and believe in their own skills in navigating the plane. The pilots may not be paying attention to the warning system as they may be engrossed doing other stuffs.

Second, the argument is flawed because it erroneously assumes that the warning system is always accurate and will be able to prevent the collision. There will sure be instances in which the warning system fails and may even results in mid-air collision. Given the fact that machines are unreliable sometimes, the author wrongly assumed that the installation of computerized on-board warning system will virtually eliminate the problem of midair plane collisions.

Finally, the author does not state clearly whether midair plane collisions are all caused by commercial airlines. Will this argument be valid if some of the midair plane collisions are caused by non-commercial planes and these planes do not have computerized on-board warning system installed? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that the pilots will surely follow the warning system's advice and the warning system will function without any error. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that the computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will help tackle the problem of midair plane collisions.
It is entirely possible that the pilots have little regards for the warning system and believe in their own skills in navigating the plane
This is not highly probable.
the next line is also debatable.

I would have supported the cause and then submitted a few reasons to deny its possibility.

Your analysis against is done well in terms of the possibilities. You can always argue that such systems are available in ships but yet there are accidents happening. Even when there is a lot of alert time. The reason for the failure is applicability in real time.
ThroughMBA Consulting
The No. 1 B-School Admission Consulting of U.K. is now the most Affordable.

https://throughmba.com
email : [email protected]

Alex Wilkins
Senior Admission Consultant, ThroughMBA.com
Panelist | MBA Admissions Achievers Meet
Interviewer | MIT Sloan | Former
Management Consultant | McKinsey & Company | Former

"Regardless of who you are or what you have been, You can make what you want to be."
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:15 am
Location: London
Thanked: 122 times
Followed by:22 members

by throughmba » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:22 am
maisatomai wrote:Question

"Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper."

Essay

In the argument above, the publisher concludes that in order to get more business to advertise, the businesses need to reduce the price of the paper. The premise of the argument is that The Bugle's low pricing has attracted a lot of customers from The Mercury and The Mercury will need to increase circulation so to attract more businesses to advertise in the paper. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that lowering the price of the paper will attract more readers and it assumes that the increased circulation will cause more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Furthermore, it assumes that the decreased readership is due to competition from The Bugle.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that readers are price-sensitive and will be attracted by cheaper papers. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the readers will not be attracted by the lowered price papers and will still stick to The Bugle. If contents of The Mercury do not relate to readers anymore, it should come as no surprise that fewer people are buying the papers.

Second, the reasoning in the announcement is flawed because it erroneously assumes that increased circulations will lead to more businesses putting up advertising in the paper. There are many other factors other than pricing which determine whether businesses will advertise in the paper. If The Bugle is offering businesses relatively low rates for advertising, it is hard to understand how the businesses will advertise in The Mercury even if they have the same readership.

Finally, the argument incorrectly assumes that the decreased in readership of The Mercury is related to the Bugle. What if the decreased in readership is because more people are turning to the internet for news? What if the decreased in readership is because the quality of The Mercury has dropped and no one is interested to buy the paper anymore, even if it is cheap? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that readers and businesses are price sensitive and the Bugle played an important role in causing The Mercury's readership to decrease. Moreover, the conclusion wrongly concludes that reducing the price of the paper will in turn attract more advertising in the paper.
circulation so to attract more businesses to advertise in the paper
so as to
Second, the reasoning in the announcement is flawed because it erroneously assumes that increased circulations will lead to more businesses putting up advertising in the paper. There are many other factors other than pricing which determine whether businesses will advertise in the paper. If The Bugle is offering businesses relatively low rates for advertising, it is hard to understand how the businesses will advertise in The Mercury even if they have the same readership.

An example here would have made it more believable.
the argument incorrectly assumes that the decreased
the decrease

A few more reasons would have made your write-up flawless.
Anyways its a 5.5 for me.
ThroughMBA Consulting
The No. 1 B-School Admission Consulting of U.K. is now the most Affordable.

https://throughmba.com
email : [email protected]

Alex Wilkins
Senior Admission Consultant, ThroughMBA.com
Panelist | MBA Admissions Achievers Meet
Interviewer | MIT Sloan | Former
Management Consultant | McKinsey & Company | Former

"Regardless of who you are or what you have been, You can make what you want to be."
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:54 pm
Question

The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."

Essay

In the argument above, the author concludes that there is no need to create the technology and infrastructure of a hundred years of oil-based energy. The premise of the argument is that the world has enough oil in reserve that can support any decrease in oil production and the world has enough oil to last us for the near future. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that there will not be conflicts in the oil-producing countries and human consumption of energy will not increase significantly in the near future. Furthermore, it assumes natural disaster will not destroy the oil reserve.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that the oil-producing countries are always peaceful and can always produce oil. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that there is war in the country and the oil-producing process is disrupted. If the oil-producing countries are overtaken by rebels who are unwilling to produce oil, it should come as no surprise that the oil will not be enough for the world.

Second, the reasoning in the editorial is flawed because it erroneously assumes that human consumption of oil will not increase significantly. Although it may be true that as technology progresses there will be more energy saving technology, there are also many new products introduced that use energy. There may be a case where the world is using too many energy hungry products and the world energy reserve is not enough to support it.

Finally, the argument incorrectly assumes that the oil-producing countries will be able to produce without disruption from natural disasters. What if an earthquake occurred and destroyed the oil reserve? What if a flood caused the oil-producing equipments to break down? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that the oil-producing countries are able to produce oil without disruption and human consumption will not rise significantly. Moreover, the conclusion wrongly concludes that there is pointless to create the technology and infrastructure of a hundred years of oil-based energy.
[/u]
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:35 am

by maisatomai » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:37 pm
QUESTION

The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:

"According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

Essay

The author concludes that aspiring athletes should try Train & Gain. The premises of the argument are that professional bodybuilders experienced a measured improvement in strength and aspiring athletes do not need a prescription to get Train & Gain. This conclusion is flawed because it falsely assumes that aspiring athletes are able to benefit from the supplement as professional bodybuilders do and athletes desire the kind of strength gained. Furthermore, the conclusion wrongly assumes that the percentage of strength gained is significant.

First, the argument assumes that aspiring athletes are able to derive the same benefit from the supplement as professional body builders do. The training of professional athletes, such as soccer players, may be very different from professional bodybuilders. Professional athletes' trainings may not be able to complement the supplement to bring out the desired effects.

Second, the argument assumes that professional athletes need the strength Train & Gain supplement is able to give. This is flawed because there are many athletes of sports which do not require the kind of strength. For example, long distance runners may need stamina more than being strong.

Finally, the argument assumes the percentage of strength gained is significant. What if only one body builder gained 20% and the rest of the body builders gained nothing? What if the gain is due to the body builders' own hard work instead of the effects of the supplements? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that aspiring athletes have the ability to benefit from the supplement and all athletes would like to have the strength of body builders. Also, it assumes that the percentage of strength gained is significant. Furthermore, it wrongly concludes that all aspiring athletes should consume Train & Gain.
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:13 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by [email protected] » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:51 pm
Hi maisatomai,

I read the first three and the latest one in the series. You have got it buddy. (cookie cutter!)
It is at least a 5.5.

Good luck.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1