Industry Newsletter GMAT AWA Essays

byRituparna Nath Content Writer at Study Abroad Exams

Industry Newsletter GMAT AWA Essays is an argumentative essay. This sample consists of one sample answer. The task requires the candidates to provide a tentative and argumentative answer to the question. The sample answers comprise two parts: Introduction and body. The introduction is a brief description of the topic. The body contains argumentative statements and tentative answers to support the test-taker's perspective. This particular GMAT AWA Essay Industry Newsletter talks about lowering property taxes for railroad companies.

GMAT AWA examines the test taker’s ability to analyze, critically think, and put their own views in an essay in 30 minutes' time. Candidates need to assess and find the faults in their assumptions. The process of checking the GMAT analytical score is based on a grading scale of 1-6 in half-point increments. To increase the GMAT AWA score, practicing from GMAT analytical writing practice papers is necessary.

Topic: The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter:

“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Sample Essay:

The passage in encircles around the merits of railways as it is a means of industrial shipping are being opposed to trucks and roads. The main point is the railways Are very much cost-effective and also environmentally coefficient. It also helps to reduce the tax burden. There are quite a number of flaws in the argument but the essay will examine three points: the first is the lack of clarity in comparing talks between rail and road companies. The second is the assumption that fuel consumption would impact the environment. The third is the failure of the assessment of whether the rail lines will have a close capacity.

The article illustrates that government should lower the property tax. The property tax on a railroad company for the transportation of goods is clearly appropriate via railways. Although the author has some compelling points, particularly with regards to the environmental issue, he neglects to assess the main issue to make such a judgment for a country. There are plenty of flaws in the argument such as the presumption that fuel usage is the single thing that has an influence on the environment, the absence of evidence in comparing tax revenues between rail and road haulage companies; and the failure to assess whether the railway lines are close to capacity.

First of all, there is nothing "clear" about it the method of ground transportation is probably going to be exceptionally conditional to various elements, for example, among the other things the distance that the goods have to move, the foundation and railway line close to the goods' final destination, and the nature of the area that must be crossed. Also while considering taxes the article neglects to explain the recent proportion between taxes for roads and taxes for the railway. It might be that despite the fact that transportation organizations just remunerate a "portion of highway maintenance costs" might be more than the "billions every year" that railways spend. At last, this evaluation correlation overlooks different clients of the organization. If far more non-shipping users are on the road then it makes sense that they are probably going to pay for a greater amount of the upkeep. On the other hand, it likely could be that rail shipping represents undeniably a greater amount of the railway lines' use than the people in general, and therefore they should pay for a higher amount of the upkeep. These issues have been stubbornly ignored.

The second principle issue is the blanket assumption that because of the better eco-efficiency of trains there is less harm to the environment. This investigation is just surface profound and overlooks every one of the sunk costs that have gone into the development of the rail lines and trains thus far; what of the immense measures of coal used to control steam engines before the internal combustion engine was refined. For instance, What of the noise pollution caused by trains in cities, or the damage to the environment affected when railways have been worked through cities of natural beauty? It is possible that a portion of these issues is additionally affected by the development of streets however, the investigation of ecological harm neglects to inspect any of these in the least way. It is brutally transparent and appears to be intentionally so to help the author's argument.

The article makes the presumption that adequate railways now exist, and accordingly, there would be no need to construct more. It does not assess whether the railway line is close to the boundary. if they are then, any ideal increase in their utilization is apparently going to demand the production of extra rail route lines. There are other optional and tertiary effects that may come to success from expanded utilization of railroad lines by shipping organizations; in the event that it implies the lines arrive at a limit and consequently ordinary passengers need to explore elective approaches to travel, these passengers may well utilize the roads - the issue is in this manner moved back to the road in any case.

Thus overall the argument is very weak when it is compared in a number of areas. It must examine the strength of railway travel in comparison to various statuses of road travel. The article must also be taken into greater depth on the taxes being paid that are huge for road companies where it is being paid less by the railway companies. The author neglects to make a valid conclusion, on the grounds that too much information about the premises is absent. a fully utilized railway system and an undeveloped railway system, the arguments of the author cannot be adequate to make such a conclusion.

Suggested GMAT AWA Essays

SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER

Industry Newsletter GMAT AWA Essays

Fees Structure

Comments

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWS LETTER