GMAT Essays (AWA)

Please rate my essays. My first attempt at a practice test with essays. Thanks in advance!

"Those who are financially successful have worked the hardest" Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement.

It's been argued that those who are the most financially successful have worked the hardest. This conclusion can be reinforced by surveying those who are indeed financially successful. Indeed, who of the rich would admittedly say that they have not worked hard? I disagree with the above statement because firstly, those who have had success did not necessarily work for their fortunes; success should not necessarily be linked with financial status and finally that the definition of hard work is broad and open to interpretation.

In a our democracy every individual is allowed to pursue happiness. Many have prided western democracy as a true meritocratic system compared to dictatorships. The sentiment in our society is that the amount of work you put into life will be reflective of the results. Social science has shown us that things like the poverty cycle are completely antithetical to the claims of a meritocratic society. For example, if every individual at the age of 18 were to leave their homes and start at a blank slate economically and socially, we can then say that society is indeed meritocratic and that that persons financial success is due to their own hard work. However it can easily be shown that this is not the case. Consider for example the way in which people acquire employment. Indeed education is a prime constituent for a job however what of the individuals that do fit the profile of being financially successful but have not not acquired their positions by true merit but by personal connections? Indeed, if society were truly meritocratic and thus making a persons financial success reflective of the work they do, we would not have people acquiring jobs through personal connection.

Next, we have to consider if hard work will always produce financial success. History has shown us that this is completely not the case. For example, today Vincent Van Gogh is a world renowned painter. People all over the globe have heard the name or have seen examples of his creative works. Today he is regarded at the forefront of impressionist painting and famous for his contributions to the genre. However during his lifetime, his accomplishments were constantly ignored and it can be argued that he worked himself to insanity. Indeed the people of his time were less willingly to accredit him the status he has today because of simple prejudice about what art is and as a result he lived most of his live in poverty, ignored by the art community at large. In hindsight, it seemed as though the world was wrong, and Van Gogh was truly a talented artist who was not properly remunerated for his works of genius. Therefore, hard work does not necessarily entail financial success.

Finally, the definition of hard work needs to be explored further. For our purposes a simple comparison will suffice. Suppose there are two individuals, one who comes from a family of wealth and distinction, the other from border line poverty. The child of affluence has all the best opportunities available to him. For example, future personal connections, access to the best education and opportunities to study abroad that would deepen his imagination. In contrast, the child of poverty must fight and struggle for these same opportunities that might not come to fruition. Moreover, consider labor intensive work to an office job. It can indeed be argued that construction workers work "harder" than a bank manager who works in an office all day. Therefore, because "hard work" is a very subjective term and open to interpretation, a construction worker could work harder and not reap the same financial benefits as a bank manager.

Malcolm Gladwell best exemplified the point that a persons cultural background and early opportunities at a young age will undoubtedly shape the future of individuals no matter how hard they work. In a democratic system where inheritance is possible, a truly meritocratic system is impossible. Vincent Van Gogh shows us that no matter how hard you work, sometimes life will not reward you financially. Moreover, since the definition of "hard work" is so open to question, it is difficult to make an accurate assessment of who worked harder than who. If it were possible, then we can without a doubt say that the richest person in the world has also worked the hardest.




"In recent years, Braeburn Corporation has seen lagging sales of its food products. Just a few of the many food products Braeburn sells are soy products. Soy products have shown to reduce rates of cancer. Because people care about reducing their risk of cancer, Braeburn should increase manufacturing of soy products. This will help Braeburn Coporation improve sales and increase profits."

Discussed how well reasoned you find this argument. Support your position with reasons and examples.

The above statement makes many logical errors, lacks support and does not properly connect its premises to its conclusion and therefore in my opinion is not a well reasoned argument. The argument makes the claim that because soy products have been shown to reduce cancer, people will buy soy products because everyone wants to reduce their chances of contracting cancer. Thus the argument concludes that focusing on producing and distributing soy will increase further profits. This argument is flawed for the following reasons.

First and foremost, the argument assumes that just because a product can be linked with health, revenues will follow. The argument does not support this point with any statistical evidence except that people do not want to contract cancer. While it may be true that people do not want cancer, just because a product can fight the probability of the disease does not necessarily make it a profitable enterprise. Consumers look for other things such as the type of lifestyle the product entails. The argument also does not consider that consumers will consume products that are in fact detrimental to their health for example cigarettes and alcohol. If the argument had argued a case against this assumption, it would have strengthened its assumption.

Secondly, the argument does not take into account the other aspects of consumer spending, which would be based on want. Indeed people do not want cancer, but do they necessarily want soy sauce because of its cancer fighting abilities and what percent of the population will consume soy sauce for that reason only? The argument made no clear connection with soy sauce and peoples want for soy sauce specifically because of its health benefits. In fact, it assumes it will. Some people might have absolutely no interest in soy sauce or think of it as a disgusting condiment. To conclude that profits will increase as a result of increased production of soy sauce is therefore specious.

Thirdly, there is no information in regards to why the Braeburn Corporation is suffering from lagging sales. Many economic factors can contribute to lagging sales that are out of the control of companies for example a recession. No distinction is made between the state of the economy or if lagging sales are a result of poor quality products or if Braeburn Corporation is not producing things people want or if its reputation has been tarnished somehow. Therefore, with very little context, the imperative to produce soy sauce to increase profits cannot be said to be a well reasoned policy. If however the argument made clear that Braeburn Corporation was suffering in sales because consumers felt that its products were bad for thier health, and thus wanting to change their corporate image, the conclusion would be stronger than as it stands.

In sum, the argument above did not strengthen its assumption that people would buy products because of its health benefits. It ignored that people indeed consume products that are bad for them and further, it did not show why sales were lagging at Braeburn Corporation thus making the conclusion's foundations stand on a morass.