GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi

I will appreciate a grading and all good/bad comments with regards to my essay below. I have taken cue from myohmy's post in the sticky with regards to style and structure. I have left one paragraph though as I was running out of time.

Also, in the analysis below, I have bold the words which I will want to keep as a general generic statement for use in most of the answers. Please also advise if the sentences in bold are strong and correct in terms of style, etc.

Question:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the human resources department of HomeStyle, a house remodelling business:

"This year, despite HomeStyle's move to new office space, we have seen a decline in both company morale and productivity, and a corresponding increase in administrative costs. To rectify these problems, we should begin using a newly developed software package for performance appraisal and feedback. Managers will save time by simply choosing comments from a preexisting list; then the software will automatically generate feedback for the employee. The human resources department at CounterBalance, the manufacturer of the countertops we install, reports satisfaction with the package."

Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.


My answer:
Despite Homestyle adopting a new office space environment recently, the human resources department of the company claimed that both company morale and productivity have declined. In addition to that, administrative costs have increased. In an attempt to rectify these problems, the author of the memorandum pronounced the company's plans to implement a newly developed software package for performance appraisal and feedback. While the author's argument contains premises with valid grounds, his reasoning and conclusion are flawed because the premises presented are unsubstantiated and are based on flawed assumptions. Therefore, we cannot accept the author's argument and conclusion as valid and sound.

A lack of evidentiary and statistical support was missing from the author's claims. No actual figures from surveys or studies were presented to support the claim that the newly developed software package will actually boost employee morale, productivity while at the same time reduce administrative costs. Perhaps, the newly developed software package is costly to implement, maintain and require employees who are skilled to operate the software. In such a scenario, the administrative costs of the system will not be reduced significantly. At the same time, the author fails to illustrate how the system can improve the productivity of all employees as a whole. The author's premise is centered around helping managers to save time in performance appraisal and feedback. These lacks of evidentiary supports weaken the author's argument to an extent that it cannot be considered strong.

In addition, the author made some assumptions which remained unproven and contain several flaws. The author made an assumption that a report of satisfaction with the software package from CounterBalance equates to a possible similar result when the system is adopted by the company. This assumption is flawed because HomeStyle is in a business that is considerably different and of a larger scale compared to that of CounterBalance. Therefore, the author cannot assume that the conditions which are favourable for the adoption of the system are present in HomeStyle as they are in CounterBalance. The author committed a flaw in assuming that a system that works for CounterBalance must work for HomeStyle and he fails to consider that differences in the business and operation of the two companies may weaken his argument.

In sum, the author's argument is constructed based on several unsubstantiated premises and flawed assumptions. While the author's argument contains some promising premises that may lead to his ultimate conclusion, he will need to provide evidence in support of these premises. He should also re-evaluate the assumptions he made, making sure that it's logical and sound. Without considering these aspects, the author's argument is weak and unlikely to be convincing.