I really appreciate any and all feedback. These are the first two essays that I have written. I did word count and the first is like 450, second is ~500 words. Do these seem long enough? I definitely used all 30 minutes on both of these essays. On the 2nd, I had to rush the conclusion as a result. Anyways, really appreciate any help (taking the test next Wednesday) and I will try and contribute to other posts in the forum.
edit: having issues w formatting
AWA--Issue
Prompt: "Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."
The issue of executive compensation has been a hot topic for debate over the last few years as the financial crisis has unfolded in front of us. Some argue that executive pay should be linked to that of their lowest-paid employees while others argue that such exorbitant salaries are necessary to attract and retain talented managers. While some may argue that the decisions of these managers have the "greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company" it does not appear that this rationale outweighs the positive impact that linking salaries could provide nor does it account for the negative impact that many highly paid executives have had on their companies.
The argument that managers should be paid so highly because of the impact they have on their company is a pretty straight forward one. However, this impact seems to be negative as often as it has been positive. The number of 'golden-parachutes' given to corporate executives over the last few years has been sickening to the ordinary worker. Since the executive receives this pay regardless of the outcome of his leadership it can lead to more careless decision making which can hurt the company, and in turn, its lowest-paid workers. These workers can have their lives be severely, negatively impacted by "the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company." The lowest-paid individuals also receive none of the upside if the manager is talented and is able to significantly benefit the company.
Tying executive salaries to those of the lowest-paid workers would help to allay fears on behalf of the worker that nobody is looking out for them and give them more incentive to be productive workers for the company. Whenever productivity, and in turn, efficiency, is increased this benefits the company and can help the executive to have a more positive impact on the company as well as make more money.
In addition, such a link between executive and lower level play would also help to improve relations between management and the workers themselves. This could materially benefit the company by reducing the costly labor disputes which can affect both the amount of time employees are working as well as their productivity while doing so.
Malcolm Gladwell, in a recent article in the New Yorker, lamented the pay of many executives and questioned whether such pay actually attracted the most talanted managers. This is a fair question to ask, and one which we have seen the answer to quite often over the last few years. Tying executive compensation to that of the lowest paid worker is one way to improve relations between management and workers, as well as to increase efficiency and productivity. Such a link between executive and worker pay can help to reduce labor costs but also reward both executives and workers for success.
SECOND ESSAY
AWA-Argument
Prompt: "Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."
This argument relies upon a number of assumptions within each statement as well as gaps in logic between the particular statements to arrive at its conclusion that all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. Without even challenging the validity of the individual statements one can see a number of holes in logic when moving from statement to statement.
The first of these gaps in logic can be seen in the transition from the idea that a society will stagnate without new ideas to the statement "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression." The argument provides no basis for this belief that new ideas come only from within a society. The government of a country could have strict controls on freedom of expression for its people yet it is still possible for new ideas to be introduced. Government members could introduce new ideas. Certainly, ideas from neighboring countries, or even across the globe, could also influence government members at all levels. One could also look at the Roman Empire and see how their expansion and the acquisition of new territory, peoples, and land also contributed new ideas to their society.
The transition from the absolutist statement that "New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression," to the conclusion that, "if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated," is similarly lacking in fact. What is the correlation between ideas and freedom of expression? Do you get zero new ideas up until the point that all limits on freedom of expression are eliminated? It reasons that a system like the United States, which allows for almost all freedom of expression yet wisely places some limits on that expression, could allow for just as many productive new ideas to emerge as a system that was wholly unchecked. No reasonable human would argue against bans on child pornography, which is certainly a "limit on freedom of expression." Nor would anyone argue that such a ban negatively impacts the number of productive, new ideas that are introduced into our society.
This argument could be strengthened by explicitly stating some of these assumptions or mentioning exceptions to the underlying assumptions of the statements. Providing an example of a society that had no freedom of expression, stagnated, and crumbled would be one way of convincing the reader. Acknowledging exceptions to the idea that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression would also strengthen the argument. Additionally, mentioning examples of heinous abuse of freedom of expression that would not be tolerated would also help to strengthen the argument proposed in the prompt.
This argument is based on too many assumptions to be considered well reasoned. There are holes in logic and exceptions to each of the individual statements which undermine the argument and thinking behind it. A more well-reasoned argument would allow for some of the exceptions to these statements and expound upon the idea more.
edit: having issues w formatting
AWA--Issue
Prompt: "Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."
The issue of executive compensation has been a hot topic for debate over the last few years as the financial crisis has unfolded in front of us. Some argue that executive pay should be linked to that of their lowest-paid employees while others argue that such exorbitant salaries are necessary to attract and retain talented managers. While some may argue that the decisions of these managers have the "greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company" it does not appear that this rationale outweighs the positive impact that linking salaries could provide nor does it account for the negative impact that many highly paid executives have had on their companies.
The argument that managers should be paid so highly because of the impact they have on their company is a pretty straight forward one. However, this impact seems to be negative as often as it has been positive. The number of 'golden-parachutes' given to corporate executives over the last few years has been sickening to the ordinary worker. Since the executive receives this pay regardless of the outcome of his leadership it can lead to more careless decision making which can hurt the company, and in turn, its lowest-paid workers. These workers can have their lives be severely, negatively impacted by "the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company." The lowest-paid individuals also receive none of the upside if the manager is talented and is able to significantly benefit the company.
Tying executive salaries to those of the lowest-paid workers would help to allay fears on behalf of the worker that nobody is looking out for them and give them more incentive to be productive workers for the company. Whenever productivity, and in turn, efficiency, is increased this benefits the company and can help the executive to have a more positive impact on the company as well as make more money.
In addition, such a link between executive and lower level play would also help to improve relations between management and the workers themselves. This could materially benefit the company by reducing the costly labor disputes which can affect both the amount of time employees are working as well as their productivity while doing so.
Malcolm Gladwell, in a recent article in the New Yorker, lamented the pay of many executives and questioned whether such pay actually attracted the most talanted managers. This is a fair question to ask, and one which we have seen the answer to quite often over the last few years. Tying executive compensation to that of the lowest paid worker is one way to improve relations between management and workers, as well as to increase efficiency and productivity. Such a link between executive and worker pay can help to reduce labor costs but also reward both executives and workers for success.
SECOND ESSAY
AWA-Argument
Prompt: "Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."
This argument relies upon a number of assumptions within each statement as well as gaps in logic between the particular statements to arrive at its conclusion that all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. Without even challenging the validity of the individual statements one can see a number of holes in logic when moving from statement to statement.
The first of these gaps in logic can be seen in the transition from the idea that a society will stagnate without new ideas to the statement "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression." The argument provides no basis for this belief that new ideas come only from within a society. The government of a country could have strict controls on freedom of expression for its people yet it is still possible for new ideas to be introduced. Government members could introduce new ideas. Certainly, ideas from neighboring countries, or even across the globe, could also influence government members at all levels. One could also look at the Roman Empire and see how their expansion and the acquisition of new territory, peoples, and land also contributed new ideas to their society.
The transition from the absolutist statement that "New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression," to the conclusion that, "if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated," is similarly lacking in fact. What is the correlation between ideas and freedom of expression? Do you get zero new ideas up until the point that all limits on freedom of expression are eliminated? It reasons that a system like the United States, which allows for almost all freedom of expression yet wisely places some limits on that expression, could allow for just as many productive new ideas to emerge as a system that was wholly unchecked. No reasonable human would argue against bans on child pornography, which is certainly a "limit on freedom of expression." Nor would anyone argue that such a ban negatively impacts the number of productive, new ideas that are introduced into our society.
This argument could be strengthened by explicitly stating some of these assumptions or mentioning exceptions to the underlying assumptions of the statements. Providing an example of a society that had no freedom of expression, stagnated, and crumbled would be one way of convincing the reader. Acknowledging exceptions to the idea that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression would also strengthen the argument. Additionally, mentioning examples of heinous abuse of freedom of expression that would not be tolerated would also help to strengthen the argument proposed in the prompt.
This argument is based on too many assumptions to be considered well reasoned. There are holes in logic and exceptions to each of the individual statements which undermine the argument and thinking behind it. A more well-reasoned argument would allow for some of the exceptions to these statements and expound upon the idea more.
