GMAT Essays (AWA)

"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport.Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."



In the preceding statement, the author claims that the goverment should lower the railroad companies's property taxes since he considers that railways spend a large amount on their maintainence as compared with the trucking companies which pay a small portion of highway maintance costs.The author supports the statement by calling the rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of communication.Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premises, and based on solely on the evidence that the author offers , we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstatiate premises.First the author claims that the trucking companies pay only a portion of highway maintainence cost and no property tax on the highway that they use where as the railway spend billions in maintaince. The author fails to consider the fact that in most of the cases the railways comes under the government. Hence, a large portion of the exchequer is devoted for the railways. Furthermore,the author claims rail to be cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. But he ignores the intial cost required to set up railway lines and the number of forest that are cut and people who are displaced.The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack legitimate evidentary support and render his conclusion invalid.

In addition , the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that increase in rail traffic would not require much tax from the taxpayers. But the author fails to give information about how the government will finance the railway project. The government will pay for the more fuel and more rails. Because the government cannot do it all by itself, it will charge people with the higher taxes. The author weakens his argument by making assumption and failing to provide clear explication.

While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions , that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can strengthen his argument by giving more information on how much is spend on the maintainence of both highway and railways? What percentage of the maintainence cost is paid by the trucking companies. Though there are several issues with the reasoning of author, he couls improve his argument significantly.

In conclusion the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptioons that render his conclusion invalid. If author truely hopes to change his reader's minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure the argument, and provide support. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.

You make some good points. I would say that the main issue is that you seem to be relying on outside knowledge of one particular country and you are making definite statements that should only be phrased as possibilities.

For example, you state the railroads are nationally owned and maintained. This is not true in the U.S. and I think it is also not true in other countries. You need only to say it is possible that the government pays for all or a portion of the costs of building and maintaining the railroads.

You also speak of the increased rail traffic, I think what you then mean to say is that increased traffic may require new rails to be laid down at that this may be expensive and not good for the environment of the people who are displaced. Yet this is not clear in your 3rd paragraph.

Overall you make some good points but need to work on stating things a little more clearly while at the same time pointing out weaknesses in the argument by mentioning possibilities (such as govt ownership of railroads) and not stating this as pure fact unless you that it is true.

I would say that this is an average essay at this point and would get a score around the 50th percentile. If you can clean things up a little you can rise above that level.

David

Thanks for your valueable feedback I will keep in mind the points you have mentioned next time i write it.

The argument that government should lower the property taxes on railway as it is a more appropriate means of ground transportation than highway shipping is not substantial. The statement that follows this sentence simply states that railway consumes less fuel and is hence more cost effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. The argument does not consider reasons for which the highway tranport is preffered over the railways. Hence this alone does not constitute a logical argument in favour of the railways and certainly provides no support or proof of the argument

First, property taxes are not levied on the trucks as they are not the only ones who use the highways. The highways are used by the general public as well. But in case of railways, the railway companies are the sole users of rail lines i.e it is a property of the rail company. By not levying this tax the government may lose substantial amount of money which is required for maintaining the rail line

Second, the editorial does not study the feasibility of railways to transport small amount of goods. Railways are bulk carriers and to ship good by rail the complete train should be booked before it starts its journey. As a result if only small amount of goods are to transferred then railways will not be feasible as the consignment will have to wait until the rail is completely booked. Thus railways may not be a preferred mode of transport for most of the companies transporting the goods.

Third, the editorial mentions that the required rail lines already exist and increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines. But it is possible that these rail lines do not connect the small towns from which majority of transportation by trucks takes place. If this is the case then railways will require building new lines. Also the already existing lines may only be sufficient to handle the current traffic and as a result increase in traffic may lead to problem of delays in time required by trains to reach the destination. Thus ultimately new rails may be required to handle to increased traffic and due to this more costs will be incurred.

Concluding, the argument has many flaws in its reasoning. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining the superficial economic benefits, the argument would have been more sound and convincing.

Its very helpful information regarding GMAT. Thanks to share this essay..