The GMAT analytical writing assessment measures the test taker’s ability to think critically and communicate through an English written essay. The GMAT AWA section requires the candidate to examine the thinking behind the argument presented and produce an evaluation of that argument. This GMAT AWA sample essay focuses on the issue that farmers who switched to organic farming last year had lower crop yields. Candidates can give their Analytical Writing Assessment section results a boost with the GMAT AWA practice papers.
Topic: The following was excerpted from the speech of a spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products, Inc.:
“Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
Answer:
The author of the argument has neglected to persuade us that the most financially clever decision for farmers is the change from natural manures and pesticides to manufactured ones. The argument depends on faulty presumptions and a defective line of thinking, a reality that renders it oversimplified and unconvincing.
As per him, despite the fact that farmers feel that changing from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides would be costly, the proceeds with lower crop yields that would result from natural cultivating don't legitimize organic farming over synthetic farming. He also pointed out that organic agriculture is impractical in terms of money, and organic agriculture depends more on environmental factors than monetary factors. Regardless of the proof introduced by the representative, the argument isn't powerful enough to persuade the reader that organic farming is imprudent compared with synthetic farming.
Also, Check:
Firstly, with respect to the investigation of farmers, the author doesn't explain whether the samples of farmers asked or mentioned are quantitatively and, in particular, subjectively illustrative of the entire farming population that changed to organic farming. Various districts have various necessities in the cultivation process, including pesticides and manures. For instance, farming in colder areas, as in Alaska, has unexpected guidelines in comparison to hotter areas like Central America or the Mediterranean. Similarly, it applies to the kind of plants and their affectability on organic or synthetic fertilizers. Did the farmers who change to organic farming share normal foundation-like areas as well as kinds of plants cultivated? The representative ought to have explained these points to set up the authenticity of the investigated analysis.
Second, the representative for Synthetic Farm Products makes a defective supposition that the natural manures and pesticides are the primary justification for the lower crop yields. In any case, he/she neglects to understand that numerous different reasons might have brought about the assumed lower crop yields. For example, severe meteorological situations, environment irregular product farming, absence of much-required rain, or plant infections might adversely affect the number of harvest yields this year. In addition, it may take longer to take full advantage of organic agriculture. It might take a few years for the soil to benefit from organic fertilizers and pesticides.
The more direct link between organic agriculture and low yields would support this claim. In addition, the author mistakenly believed that last year’s pattern would last for many years. Nonetheless, there is no proof or reference to any connected forecast that checks the presumed future pattern.
Finally, it is assumed that the decision to cultivate organically is monetarily unwise and claimed that this was due to environmental and non-financial issues. Here, the representative also assumes that environmental considerations cannot be financially reasonable at the same time, regardless of the fact that there might be an increasing demand by customers for natural products, a model certainly confirming the switch of certain farmers to organic cultivation.
In conclusion, on the basis of unconfirmed suppositions and weak evidence, the author's reasoning doesn't offer substantial support for his/her judgment. If the argument had incorporated the things addressed above, it would have been more convincing and precise.
Comments