The GMAT Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) section, consisting of one 30-minute essay, measures the candidate's ability to express a proper and constructive evaluation of a definite conclusion based on a specific line of thinking. This GMAT AWA essay focuses on the awareness of the damage caused by various manufacturing processes. There is a wide range of topics available in GMAT AWA practice papers for candidates to practice.
Topic: The following appeared in an editorial from a magazine produced by an organization dedicated to environmental protection:
“In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc
Answer:
The author states that the managers of manufacturing plants must be aware of the damage caused by their various manufacturing processes. He also suggests that the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact. Also, the government should impose financial penalties for those who fail to provide these reports. The author points out that creating awareness among people about environmental damage will urge companies to bring out solutions to these problems. But there are many companies that don’t have enough funds to monitor this environmental impact. Therefore the argument fails to be convincing and lacks some information.
First of all, the author’s claim that making managers aware of environmental pollution would effectively reduce the damage, does not make any sense. It doesn’t seem authentic and is completely baseless. Are there any strong environmental laws that can take managers to account for purposely polluting the environment? Was there any survey conducted that confirms this fact? Without establishing a precise cause-effect relationship, it appears to be an irrational contention.
Also, Check:
Second, the author's line of reasoning is totally established on the error that a couple of companies that ineffectively investigate and notice the particular amount and kinds of damage. In any case, they can possibly deliver detailed yearly reports per the government's compulsion. This is truly a questionable case. Apparently, those companies acquire low profits, and consequently can't react to the new act of yearly report. They would be unavoidably ignored by the fine, and experience even lower benefits. They would be unavoidably ignored by the fine, and experience even lower benefits. Since the major cause of the issue actually exists, the financial fines would worsen the circumstances. If so, then, at that point the assumption for decreased pollution is groundless.
Additionally, the author anticipates the achievement of the plan on the defective hypothesis that understanding the natural effects would prompt the companies' further activities to resolve the issue.
Although, this argument isn't really substantial. Regardless of whether the organizations see the outcomes from pollution produced from their manufacturing plants, they may be abandoning them all. The significant improvement to reduce the pollution may require the organizations to put in new machines, to instruct and prepare their laborers, and to redesign the trash framework. The organizations may not agree to do so on the grounds that they need to go through huge investments. The government can't resolve the issues without the companies' collaboration.
Finally, even if companies agree to provide the annual statements as the government's requirement, the author neglects to address the validity of those detailed annual reports. This commitment will come into effect when the reliability of these reports is believed to be correct. On the contrary, if the companies provide inaccurate and fake data, then these reports would not be of any help.
In conclusion, this argument is inappropriate. To reinforce the argument, the author would need to give enough proof that the companies that don't have sufficient funds to screen the environmental damage. And that they have enough assets to deliver the recommended yearly reports to the government. In addition, the author needs to explain that the awareness of the environmental issues would surely achieve the collaboration of each company to take care of the issue. Above all, more data about the process of checking the yearly reports must be given. Without such evidence referenced over, this argument remains consistently unconvincing,
Comments