GMAT analytical writing assessment tests the candidate’s capability to rationalize thoughts and reasons behind the argument. Candidates are required to complete the GMAT analytical writing assessment in 30 minutes. This GMAT AWA sample essay talks about policies that would help to resolve environmental issues. GMAT AWA practice papers include a variety of similar topics for candidates to daily practice.
Topic: The following appeared as part of a plan proposed by an executive of the Easy Credit Company to the president:
“The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we were to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use of our cards to a well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of its symbol or logo on our card. Since a recent poll shows that a large percentage of the public is concerned about environmental issues, this policy would attract new customers, increase use among existing customers, and enable us to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Answer:
The above-present argument isn't persuasive. The author infers that because people are more concerned about climate issues, the Easy Credit company would draw in new clients or increase the utilization of existing clients. This too without changing their higher interest rate while donating a segment of the returns from the use of their card to the environmental association and using their logo. There are some pragmatic suspicions that lead to a logical separation between reason and conclusion. These days the customers have numerous options about which credit card to use for their shopping and many have various cards that give amazing rewards according to their individual preferences (for example sports fan merchandise, aircraft miles, schools, and so forth). While the argument above follows that reason, it is notably defective in its judgment. Easy Credit provided information on the data breach argument and performed additional assessments based on misunderstandings.
Firstly, the argument depends on the data from the new consumer survey, which makes an association that isn't completely depicted. The survey tracked down that a large portion of people, in general, are worried about environmental issues. But, this doesn't furnish a number that connects with the number of individuals who are suspected customers. For instance, a "large percentage" could mean 51% and if the organization needs 80% of the market to have a strategic advantage, this model would not hold.
Also, Check:
Moreover, the survey got some information about environmental issues, not about the specific environmental corporation. This concern could prompt a variety of practices that would not certainly lead people to give to the association. For instance, public concern may lead to utilizing less energy in the home, driving more eco-friendly vehicles, and being more aware of water utilization. Without understanding what kinds of conduct are coming because of the concern, we have no practical way to infer that the concern would cause spending on one specific association. Similarly, since we have no data about how the public feels about the specific association, Easy Credit's target. The case might be that the organization is a disputable one that people would not be enthusiastic about donating.
Although this argument has many flaws, it can be fully supported if the data is more accurate and the reasons are more closely related. The claim that Easy Credit would have an edge could be strengthened if the survey had the option to disclose to us that a portion of the percentage of the existing and prospective customers of Easy Credit would spend more at higher rates if that portion went to the specific environmental association. This data would permit us to see an immediate connection between the public concern and the benefits of this information. The argument might be additionally defended with data about Easy Credit's rivals. For example, their incapability to give this donation service to the fraction of the people that the organizations are targeting.
In conclusion, while Easy Credit's argument is profoundly damaged and missing significant snippets of data that would allow us to reach any conclusion. It could undoubtedly be strengthened with more accurate information. As credit card organizations become more competing and attempt to offer more personalized incentives for more card use. A defective end may bring about weak deals and wasted attempts. With the right data, it can surely result in an upper hand and lifted card sales and use.
Comments