Hello,
I have taken 4 CATs so far and I've done all of them in test settings (completed all sections with no breaks).
I just winged my essays and I haven't really found any "guide" for writing the essays. My GMAT is coming up in 10 days and I want to just make sure I cover all the points and not forget about it while I'm preparing for Quant & Verbal.
Here are two essays I've written. If someone could evaluate them, even briefly, I would greatly appreciate it. What are the pros and cons of my essay(s) and what should I improve on?
!.) Analyze an Issue:
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Status as a 'superpower' does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs. Even a superpower should remain neutral towards world events except in cases of self-defense."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Superpower, a relatively new term, at least with respect to histories of nations around the world, is a euphemism created and perpetuated by the so-called 'superpower' itself. Why is this case? A superpower, by definition, relates to only two things about a nation; economy and military might. These two factors most certainly do not allow a nation to become the prognosticator of morality and/or prudence with regards to human affairs on the world stage. The position that "a superpower does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs" is not only an astute declaration, but more importantly, an imperative for countries that think of themselves as such.
As nations around the world are vying for control of natural resources, human resources, and hegemony over others, the common man is left watching the drama unfold from the sidelines. A 'superpower', a country with vast economic and military strength, by definition, will have many allies and perhaps even more enemies. A country's first responsibility is towards its citizens; the backbone of any 'nation'. Economic strength and military might are not and do not have any bearing on moral authority. Hence, a country that takes sides in world affairs that do not concern the safety, economic integrity, or its military might can only be seen as meddling. This not only creates enemies in the eyes of less powerful nations, but hubris for the superpower itself.
A nation thrives not because it is rich or because its military is the most capable, but because of the character of its people and their collective action on matters of importance. It is clear that any nation that volunteers itself as world-chief-of-police will soon be met with vociferous opposition and eventually could lead to conflict; militarily or otherwise.
One can, however, argue that since the economy depends on world trade, it is of grave importance for a nation, a superpower especially, to be concerned with world affairs. This is a rather myopic view because governments of nations are not robotic and self-sustaining. They are run by humans, equally culpable and vulnerable to the foibles of the human condition. Greed, hegemony, violence, aggression are not fringe emotions and thoughts; they lead to the very actions of people from all countries and all cultures. It is thus paramount for any so-called 'superpower' to be actively responsible in not meddling in world affairs or acting as moral police.
A world with nations, that is, with borders and subsequent definitions of people, culture, language, religion, and way of life is already variegated enough to cause strife for many. One nation acting as the arbiter of morality will spell disaster not only for other nations, but for the 'superpower' itself.
2.) Analyze an Argument:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a strategy memorandum of an investment company:
"Over the past several years, investment in precious metals, such as gold and silver, has proven to be one of the most profitable investment strategies for our firm. Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong, largely driven by the economic growth of large emerging markets--China, India, and Russia. Thus, our investors are best served by increasing their exposure to precious metals to take advantage of this unique profit-making opportunity."
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument that investments should be made based on projections of any product, precious or otherwise, is the standard model of investments the world over. Financial managers, investment analysts, and others who claim to divine the future tend to follow historic events, patterns, and trends that are indicative of future growth in a particular investment vehicle. However, in this argument, the author states that investments in precious metals provide a unique opportunity for growth because of emerging markets' demands for such products. The argument is weak because there is a tenuous link between a products and markets; in other words, investment in precious metals in countries such as China and India may prove to be prudent however that is certainly not indicative, or reason enough, for someone in the US or Europe to invest in those metals.
The author states, "Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong,...", making a seemingly convincing case for investment precious metals. Any prudent investor is bound to check the ins and outs of any investment opportunity, and this is no exception. Thus, it is quite clear that the author of this memorandum did not bother to mention, intentionally or otherwise, the cons of investment in precious metals. A one-sided memorandum such as this one is bound to raise a few eyebrows for any serious investor. This is why this argument is tenuous at best.
If the author had stated something along the likes of, "Along with strong evidence from emerging markets' demand for precious metals, there is ample proof for diminishing quantity of such metals around the world", the case would be much stronger for an investor to consider investment in precious metals. Or even something like, "Our company has contracts with the three main corporations that are directly involved in mining these precious metals around the globe", an investor would be more inclined to invest in precious metals from the recommendation of the memorandum.
By giving more evidence for the investment company's involvement in precious metals, directly or indirectly, a serious investor is bound to take the advice carefully and potential investment opportunities could come to fruition. Yet, the case for investing in precious metals based on a single reason - that emerging markets' economic growth warrants such investment - is tenuous and frankly amateurish. With more evidence and perhaps outlines of case-studies in precious metals pertinent to investment in them, would more than suffice for persuading potential investors in the direction the author of the memorandum originally intended.
Thank you.
I have taken 4 CATs so far and I've done all of them in test settings (completed all sections with no breaks).
I just winged my essays and I haven't really found any "guide" for writing the essays. My GMAT is coming up in 10 days and I want to just make sure I cover all the points and not forget about it while I'm preparing for Quant & Verbal.
Here are two essays I've written. If someone could evaluate them, even briefly, I would greatly appreciate it. What are the pros and cons of my essay(s) and what should I improve on?
!.) Analyze an Issue:
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Status as a 'superpower' does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs. Even a superpower should remain neutral towards world events except in cases of self-defense."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Superpower, a relatively new term, at least with respect to histories of nations around the world, is a euphemism created and perpetuated by the so-called 'superpower' itself. Why is this case? A superpower, by definition, relates to only two things about a nation; economy and military might. These two factors most certainly do not allow a nation to become the prognosticator of morality and/or prudence with regards to human affairs on the world stage. The position that "a superpower does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs" is not only an astute declaration, but more importantly, an imperative for countries that think of themselves as such.
As nations around the world are vying for control of natural resources, human resources, and hegemony over others, the common man is left watching the drama unfold from the sidelines. A 'superpower', a country with vast economic and military strength, by definition, will have many allies and perhaps even more enemies. A country's first responsibility is towards its citizens; the backbone of any 'nation'. Economic strength and military might are not and do not have any bearing on moral authority. Hence, a country that takes sides in world affairs that do not concern the safety, economic integrity, or its military might can only be seen as meddling. This not only creates enemies in the eyes of less powerful nations, but hubris for the superpower itself.
A nation thrives not because it is rich or because its military is the most capable, but because of the character of its people and their collective action on matters of importance. It is clear that any nation that volunteers itself as world-chief-of-police will soon be met with vociferous opposition and eventually could lead to conflict; militarily or otherwise.
One can, however, argue that since the economy depends on world trade, it is of grave importance for a nation, a superpower especially, to be concerned with world affairs. This is a rather myopic view because governments of nations are not robotic and self-sustaining. They are run by humans, equally culpable and vulnerable to the foibles of the human condition. Greed, hegemony, violence, aggression are not fringe emotions and thoughts; they lead to the very actions of people from all countries and all cultures. It is thus paramount for any so-called 'superpower' to be actively responsible in not meddling in world affairs or acting as moral police.
A world with nations, that is, with borders and subsequent definitions of people, culture, language, religion, and way of life is already variegated enough to cause strife for many. One nation acting as the arbiter of morality will spell disaster not only for other nations, but for the 'superpower' itself.
2.) Analyze an Argument:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a strategy memorandum of an investment company:
"Over the past several years, investment in precious metals, such as gold and silver, has proven to be one of the most profitable investment strategies for our firm. Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong, largely driven by the economic growth of large emerging markets--China, India, and Russia. Thus, our investors are best served by increasing their exposure to precious metals to take advantage of this unique profit-making opportunity."
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument that investments should be made based on projections of any product, precious or otherwise, is the standard model of investments the world over. Financial managers, investment analysts, and others who claim to divine the future tend to follow historic events, patterns, and trends that are indicative of future growth in a particular investment vehicle. However, in this argument, the author states that investments in precious metals provide a unique opportunity for growth because of emerging markets' demands for such products. The argument is weak because there is a tenuous link between a products and markets; in other words, investment in precious metals in countries such as China and India may prove to be prudent however that is certainly not indicative, or reason enough, for someone in the US or Europe to invest in those metals.
The author states, "Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong,...", making a seemingly convincing case for investment precious metals. Any prudent investor is bound to check the ins and outs of any investment opportunity, and this is no exception. Thus, it is quite clear that the author of this memorandum did not bother to mention, intentionally or otherwise, the cons of investment in precious metals. A one-sided memorandum such as this one is bound to raise a few eyebrows for any serious investor. This is why this argument is tenuous at best.
If the author had stated something along the likes of, "Along with strong evidence from emerging markets' demand for precious metals, there is ample proof for diminishing quantity of such metals around the world", the case would be much stronger for an investor to consider investment in precious metals. Or even something like, "Our company has contracts with the three main corporations that are directly involved in mining these precious metals around the globe", an investor would be more inclined to invest in precious metals from the recommendation of the memorandum.
By giving more evidence for the investment company's involvement in precious metals, directly or indirectly, a serious investor is bound to take the advice carefully and potential investment opportunities could come to fruition. Yet, the case for investing in precious metals based on a single reason - that emerging markets' economic growth warrants such investment - is tenuous and frankly amateurish. With more evidence and perhaps outlines of case-studies in precious metals pertinent to investment in them, would more than suffice for persuading potential investors in the direction the author of the memorandum originally intended.
Thank you.
