Building Incinerator AWA GMAT Sample

Building incinerator is a AWA GMAT Sample essay. GMAT analytical writing assessment examines the writing skills of a candidate through an essay. AWA GMAT Sample helps the candidate to write answers which shows and portrays the flaws in the given argument. It is important for challenging and task-oriented candidates to present their answers in a well-organized and planned manner. The GMAT AWA sample needs to ensure that candidates are able to present their ideas efficiently. Candidates can check more GMAT AWA practice papers.

In the AWA GMAT Sample essay, candidates must provide evidence and discuss their thoughts on the topic. In addition, candidates should try to convince the readers by describing the different figures and facts of the scenario. Candidates, however, need to understand that writing the essay for AWA GMAT Essay requires them to follow a definite structure that would enable organized writing. The following structure for the GMAT AWA Essay including five important paragraphs can be considered appropriate.

Introduction: In introduction, the candidates need to first explain and brief about the topic of the given essay. They should clearly mention how well this is reasoned. The overview of the passage needs to be discussed in the introduction by the candidates.
Paragraph 1: In this paragraph, candidates must put forward the facts and figures stated in the passage. They can also question the validity of the passage and explain them with reasons. Candidates must include all the key points that can be discussed in the coming paragraphs.
Paragraph 2: This paragraph needs to include the second reason for the stated opinion of the candidate. Candidates can mention the background and provide reasons. Candidates can also include examples. With the help of the example and argument, it is shown that the point of view is wrong and inconsistent.
Final paragraph: This paragraph should highlight the passage. Candidates can mention the flaws provided by the author and evidence to prove that. They can also mention what would have been different and create a discussion.
Conclusion: The conclusion reminds the reader and students of the title of the article. It includes arguments and counter-arguments with examples to support and disprove the candidates' views. Here is a summary of the whole article. The word ‘finally’ emphasizes on conclusion. It is briefed with an increase in abilities like communication skills and linguistic talents. This paragraph ultimately shows the requirement of many factors in the success of a magazine.

Based on the structure and content of the GMAT release document, the best way is taken to explain the topic. This is by considering the following response strategies, appreciating positive actions. It is also done by ignoring negative ones as much as possible:

Instead of analyzing and exploring an argument that criticizes the writer's statement, a characteristic feature is chosen. This is maintained throughout the length of the article.
The entire article gives relevance and uniqueness to the readers by providing reasons and illustrations.
Strong declarative or assertive statements are created with active language and statements of cause, reasons and effect.
The supporting statements are formatted and described well, briefed with two or three sentences and concluded the article with a strong point

Topic:

The Following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

“In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash. An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill: incinerators can be adapted to generate a moderate amount of electricity, and ash residue from some type of trash can be used to condition garden soil.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Sample Essay:

The above argument claims that instead of disposing and leaving the trash as dangerous landfills, we can build some man-made plants to burn the trash. This will be more economical and save most of the places clean. It will also avoid the health threats associated with landfills such as the diseases that were caused by the mosquitos. Arguments also state that incinerators can be adapted to generate useful electricity. It can help as the residue from some type of trash can be used to condition and nourish the garden soil, in order to make the incinerators more economical. This argument gives poor reasoning for replacing landfill with incinerators. It also missed out to consider other affecting factors that are important for the evaluation of the argument. Basically, the above argument can be supported in one way and can be denied in the other way. The claim of the above argument is not clear and does not represent real-life problems that were prevalent in most of the countries.

Generally an incinerator is a container that is mainly used for burning biological refuse. It can also act as an industrial plant that is designed for large-scale refuse combustion over the plant. Primarily, the above argument stresses the point that landfills will have serious health threats. In general, the diseases and health threats related to landfills are very few in number. The above argument has missed mentioning whether all those health threats will be eliminated once we replace landfill with incinerators. This is the must-to-be-included statement. The argument lacked to provide information on this most basic Idea. The idea on which the argument of switching from landfill to using incinerator stands is not the correct and efficient remedy.

The secondary discussion - Though the argument mentions that using the incinerator will be more economical, it does not give information on the cost. No cost comparison between landfill as one option and incinerator as the other is shared. Generally, the cost of building an incinerator for the sake of landfills will be more or less than not recommended. So, without having proper information on the cost of disposing, any options using the incinerator will not be economical. Also, most of the diseases that were caused by the landfills are due to the stagnant water and other drainage waste that was released by the residential houses. These can not be dismissed by using incinerators. The above argument should contain some other way that can overcome the problems due to the stagnant water and drainage issues. Only then, it can be considered as an economical idea and can be given a glance for avoiding the problems related to the landfills.

The third most important thing about the argument is that the argument misses out on how we are planning to control air pollution. This usually happens due to the burning of trash, as even air pollution will have an ill effect on the health of people. The incinerators will take more raw materials and other items to be constructed only for the sake of burning the waste products in the landfills. This can be the major drawback of the above argument and this can not be feasible as it will not provide a solution for a larger range of problems. The argument mentions that the residue that is being produced from some type of trash after the biodegradation can be used to condition the garden soil. However, it fails to mention what percentage of the total trash that is to be incarcerated will fall under this category. It is very crucial to know what percentage of total generated residue can be utilized to condition the garden. If the majority of it cannot be used, how are we planning to dispose of this residue?

As the concluding point, that was mentioned in the above points, the argument is flawed and is therefore unconvincing. The statement could have been made more convincing and reasonable, by mentioning the cost factor related to both options. And this can also be achieved by discussing the health hazard of using an incinerator and giving more information about the trash and other health hazards. In general, the problems related to landfills can be easily overwritten using some other means of cleaning the environment. Hence building an incinerator may not be the apt decision. Hence this statement can be rejected by taking the cost of the idea and the spectrum of the problems that were cleared by the above-said activities. Hence, according to my knowledge, the above said argument is not to its full precaution and can be extended to make itself much more efficient.

Suggested GMAT AWA Essays

SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER

Building Incinerator AWA GMAT Sample

Fees Structure

Comments

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWS LETTER