GMAT Essays (AWA)

Timed 24 minutes
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

"The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration."

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.

Immigration has been a widely debated topic with both sides having valid points on both sides. On one hand Immigration leads to limited jobs for the locals, it also encourages globalism which helps in growth of multilateral relations between nations.

The argument presented looks at only the negative aspects of the immigration and quotes only a particular aspect of the growth of immigration. Not only does the author limit it to a single aspect, the author also fails to look into the other factors that could have caused such a decline.

The author's premises is on the basis that over the past 5 years the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city is due to immigration. The author ignores various other factors that could actually cause such a decline. One of them could be that the industries have become more capital intensive leading to more mechanized and thus leading to a low demand for the unskilled labor. The author also ignores to take into consideration, if the economy of the city has been in a solid state or not. Since, if an economy faces recession, companies generally pat less compensation to the unskilled labor. There also could be an increase in amount of unskilled labor present in city locally, leading to a decrease in the compensation. The author's premises that immigration is highly narrow since it does not take into consideration, all the positive aspects of immigration.

The author assumes that a moratorium will be effective in protecting the economy. However, a moratorium could only be effective if there is only legal entry of immigration in the city. If there is a high degree of illegal immigration, moratorium will have no or limited effect. The author does not consider any negative effect of imposing a moratorium. The negative aspects could include trade sanctions against the city, which would be harmful for the economy of the city.

Although the argument has several weaknesses and does not look at the broad aspects of immigration, in order to convince the readers for imposing a moratorium, it could look into strengthening its premises first. Author needs to eliminate the other factors that could ultimately lead to a decline in average compensation for unskilled labor. Author could also look into factors such as limited supply of jobs for unskilled labor and high influx of foreign unskilled labor. Author could strengthen the premises by stressing the impact of moratorium on the immigration of workers.

Thus, the argument posed in the question faces sever issues and lacks clarity. The premises and the assumptions do not look into other factors for the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. In order to convince the reader he needs to enforce both of them and clearly eliminate other factors with reason.

vaibhavgupta wrote:Timed 24 minutes
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

"The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration."

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.

Immigration has been a widely debated topic with both sides having valid points on both sides. On one hand Immigration leads to limited jobs for the locals, it also encourages globalism which helps in growth of multilateral relations between nations.

The argument presented looks at only the negative aspects of the immigration and quotes only a particular aspect of the growth of immigration. Not only does the author limit it to a single aspect, the author also fails to look into the other factors that could have caused such a decline.

The author's premises is on the basis that over the past 5 years the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city is due to immigration. The author ignores various other factors that could actually cause such a decline. One of them could be that the industries have become more capital intensive leading to more mechanized and thus leading to a low demand for the unskilled labor. The author also ignores to take into consideration, if the economy of the city has been in a solid state or not. Since, if an economy faces recession, companies generally pat less compensation to the unskilled labor. There also could be an increase in amount of unskilled labor present in city locally, leading to a decrease in the compensation. The author's premises that immigration is highly narrow since it does not take into consideration, all the positive aspects of immigration.

The author assumes that a moratorium will be effective in protecting the economy. However, a moratorium could only be effective if there is only legal entry of immigration in the city. If there is a high degree of illegal immigration, moratorium will have no or limited effect. The author does not consider any negative effect of imposing a moratorium. The negative aspects could include trade sanctions against the city, which would be harmful for the economy of the city.

Although the argument has several weaknesses and does not look at the broad aspects of immigration, in order to convince the readers for imposing a moratorium, it could look into strengthening its premises first. Author needs to eliminate the other factors that could ultimately lead to a decline in average compensation for unskilled labor. Author could also look into factors such as limited supply of jobs for unskilled labor and high influx of foreign unskilled labor. Author could strengthen the premises by stressing the impact of moratorium on the immigration of workers.

Thus, the argument posed in the question faces sever issues and lacks clarity. The premises and the assumptions do not look into other factors for the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. In order to convince the reader he needs to enforce both of them and clearly eliminate other factors with reason.

I couldnt find a single flaw. Its not near perfect, just perfect.

Just a bit careful with words like globalism and spell error with words like severe.

Did I see an exibition for a 6? Very much.

throughmba wrote:

vaibhavgupta wrote:Timed 24 minutes
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

"The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration."

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.

Immigration has been a widely debated topic with both sides having valid points on both sides. On one hand Immigration leads to limited jobs for the locals, it also encourages globalism which helps in growth of multilateral relations between nations.

The argument presented looks at only the negative aspects of the immigration and quotes only a particular aspect of the growth of immigration. Not only does the author limit it to a single aspect, the author also fails to look into the other factors that could have caused such a decline.

The author's premises is on the basis that over the past 5 years the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city is due to immigration. The author ignores various other factors that could actually cause such a decline. One of them could be that the industries have become more capital intensive leading to more mechanized and thus leading to a low demand for the unskilled labor. The author also ignores to take into consideration, if the economy of the city has been in a solid state or not. Since, if an economy faces recession, companies generally pat less compensation to the unskilled labor. There also could be an increase in amount of unskilled labor present in city locally, leading to a decrease in the compensation. The author's premises that immigration is highly narrow since it does not take into consideration, all the positive aspects of immigration.

The author assumes that a moratorium will be effective in protecting the economy. However, a moratorium could only be effective if there is only legal entry of immigration in the city. If there is a high degree of illegal immigration, moratorium will have no or limited effect. The author does not consider any negative effect of imposing a moratorium. The negative aspects could include trade sanctions against the city, which would be harmful for the economy of the city.

Although the argument has several weaknesses and does not look at the broad aspects of immigration, in order to convince the readers for imposing a moratorium, it could look into strengthening its premises first. Author needs to eliminate the other factors that could ultimately lead to a decline in average compensation for unskilled labor. Author could also look into factors such as limited supply of jobs for unskilled labor and high influx of foreign unskilled labor. Author could strengthen the premises by stressing the impact of moratorium on the immigration of workers.

Thus, the argument posed in the question faces sever issues and lacks clarity. The premises and the assumptions do not look into other factors for the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. In order to convince the reader he needs to enforce both of them and clearly eliminate other factors with reason.

I couldnt find a single flaw. Its not near perfect, just perfect.

Just a bit careful with words like globalism and spell error with words like severe.

Did I see an exibition for a 6? Very much.

Wow!! Thankss!

And yes even i am a bit worried about spelling mistakes :/

Before I start I just want to say to vaibhavgupta that this is not me trying to bash your essay or anything.

Alex, you do a great job of going through and providing feedback for so many essays. You called this one "not near perfect, just perfect". While going through this essay, I noticed several issues that looked like errors to me. I am just trying to understand whether I am just understanding it wrong or whether GMAC does not take these into account while grading.

Sentence 1 - "... both sides having valid points on both sides" - construction seems repetitive

Sentence 2 - Shouldn't the sentence start with "While" instead of "On one hand" ? If it starts with "On one hand" I would think you would need have something like "while on the other hand" somewhere in there.

Third Paragraph
"The author's premises is on the basis..." - singular / plural issue?
"... leading to more mechanized..." - more mechanized what?
"The author also ignores to take into consideration..." - The author either ignores or fails to take into consideration... it can't be both can it?

Fifth Paragraph
"Author needs...", "Author could..." etc. Shouldn't the correct usage be "The author needs..." or is either correct?


Am I just not understanding correct usage myself or are these issues GMAC overlooks?

Again, while it might seem like I am bashing the essay, that is not the case at all. I am just trying to understand what it takes to get a 6.

Picchi

ohh...I missed them.

Vaibhav has to give a treat now. His hall of fame is over. Brace yourself for the occasion buddy.

Thanks anyways for the effort.

Picchi wrote:Before I start I just want to say to vaibhavgupta that this is not me trying to bash your essay or anything.

Alex, you do a great job of going through and providing feedback for so many essays. You called this one "not near perfect, just perfect". While going through this essay, I noticed several issues that looked like errors to me. I am just trying to understand whether I am just understanding it wrong or whether GMAC does not take these into account while grading.

Sentence 1 - "... both sides having valid points on both sides" - construction seems repetitive

Sentence 2 - Shouldn't the sentence start with "While" instead of "On one hand" ? If it starts with "On one hand" I would think you would need have something like "while on the other hand" somewhere in there.

Third Paragraph
"The author's premises is on the basis..." - singular / plural issue?
"... leading to more mechanized..." - more mechanized what?
"The author also ignores to take into consideration..." - The author either ignores or fails to take into consideration... it can't be both can it?

Fifth Paragraph
"Author needs...", "Author could..." etc. Shouldn't the correct usage be "The author needs..." or is either correct?


Am I just not understanding correct usage myself or are these issues GMAC overlooks?

Again, while it might seem like I am bashing the essay, that is not the case at all. I am just trying to understand what it takes to get a 6.

In fact I am looking for an understanding of how to crack a 6 in AWA. Your thoughts are appreciated. Will work on this for sure!