Please someone rate my GMAT AWA argument essay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
Argument
------------
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
My Response
-----------------
The author concludes that the manager of the department for purchasing raw material is at fault for little knowledge about properties of metals and that falling revenues are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. Though at a first glance, the arugment looks sound, but a closer analysis reveal that the argument rests on weak premises and questionable assumptions.
First, the author readily assumes that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. The author fails to provide any factual data or evidence to support the same. For example, there are chances that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor inventory management rather than poor planning in purchasing raw materials. It could also be possible that some snag in assembly line has resulted in delays in manufacturing. The arugument could have been clearer if the actualy relationship between purchasing of metals and manufacturing of goods was clearly specified.
Second, the author claims that the manager is inefficient just because he lacks the knowledge of metal properties though he is good at general business. The author fails to identify any other reason leading to inefficiency in purchasing metals. For instance, the market conditions may not be good enough for the supply of metals and the manager may actually be doing better than any other manager in handling such a situation. If the author had provided evidence to relate the knowledge of properties of metals to efficiency at purchasing them, the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the author assumes that a scientist from research division will perform better than the current manager without understanding the overall requirements of the role. To illustrate, the role of a manager demands not only technical knowledge but also managerial skills and business acumen to handle various situations involving interaction with other people. A scientist who might lack these soft skills may actually prove worse than the current manager at handling the situation. Chances are that the manager is actually performing much better than any such scientist mentioned by the author. A close study of the requirements of the role can make the arugment more convincing.
To sum, the argument is weak and unconvincing because of the above mentioned reasons. The argument can be made more persuasive by providing evidences as specified above. Without these facts, the argument is not very convincing and fails to impress the reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
Thanks a lot in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
Argument
------------
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
My Response
-----------------
The author concludes that the manager of the department for purchasing raw material is at fault for little knowledge about properties of metals and that falling revenues are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. Though at a first glance, the arugment looks sound, but a closer analysis reveal that the argument rests on weak premises and questionable assumptions.
First, the author readily assumes that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. The author fails to provide any factual data or evidence to support the same. For example, there are chances that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor inventory management rather than poor planning in purchasing raw materials. It could also be possible that some snag in assembly line has resulted in delays in manufacturing. The arugument could have been clearer if the actualy relationship between purchasing of metals and manufacturing of goods was clearly specified.
Second, the author claims that the manager is inefficient just because he lacks the knowledge of metal properties though he is good at general business. The author fails to identify any other reason leading to inefficiency in purchasing metals. For instance, the market conditions may not be good enough for the supply of metals and the manager may actually be doing better than any other manager in handling such a situation. If the author had provided evidence to relate the knowledge of properties of metals to efficiency at purchasing them, the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the author assumes that a scientist from research division will perform better than the current manager without understanding the overall requirements of the role. To illustrate, the role of a manager demands not only technical knowledge but also managerial skills and business acumen to handle various situations involving interaction with other people. A scientist who might lack these soft skills may actually prove worse than the current manager at handling the situation. Chances are that the manager is actually performing much better than any such scientist mentioned by the author. A close study of the requirements of the role can make the arugment more convincing.
To sum, the argument is weak and unconvincing because of the above mentioned reasons. The argument can be made more persuasive by providing evidences as specified above. Without these facts, the argument is not very convincing and fails to impress the reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
Thanks a lot in advance.