Most websites, books, and exam preparation courses that offer GMAT essay tips do little more than the obvious ones say. Tips such as “Time Management”, “structuring your essay”, “using transitions”, etc., apply to any appointment over time and ignore the specifics of the GMAT AWA, which requires the testers to analyze the argument. To get a high score on AWA, before testers are understood the elements of the argument, and not just the elements of a good letter. The three GMAT essay tips below precede the elements of good writing: they are crucial for determining which ideas in the argument require more concentration and for creating the logical structure of the essay.
GMAT Essay Tip # 1: Understanding the Structure of the Argument
At the most basic level, an argument consists of two elements: rewards (also called causes or grounds) and a conclusion (also called a complaint). The conclusion is that the argument is trying to convince the audience to take (for example, that you need to take some action in order to perform the "x" in the best way, etc., etc.). On the other hand, rewards are the reasons or support used to substantiate a conclusion. Premises are statements that are believed to be true, but which have not been proven and may, in fact, be logically suspicious. In a coherent argument, the rewards must be relevant to the conclusion, and the conclusion must necessarily flow from concessions.
To help illustrate the difference between assignments and the conclusions of an argument, consider the following example:
The luxury goods market is in a recession. Recent reports indicate that higher unemployment rates combined with consumer fears reduce the amount of money that average household income applies to both basic and non-essential items, but especially non-essential items. Since luxury goods are by their nature insignificant, this market will be the first in the current economic climate, and luxury retailers should refocus their attention on cheaper markets.
This argument concludes that "retailers should redirect their attention to cheaper markets." The conclusion is based on the following concessions: 1) that higher unemployment and consumer fears have led to a decrease in the purchase of essential and non-essential items; 2) that luxury items are non-essential items; 3) that the reduction in the purchase of items not related to the main activity was / will be more than the reduction of the main items.
Recognizing the difference between an argument and a conclusion, it is necessary to accurately summarize the argument, determine which points deserve attention, and effectively demonstrate the invalidity of the argument. In accordance with the GMAT evaluation criteria, in order to get a grade of 5 or 6 (the highest possible score) on the AWA, the essay should “clearly identify the important features of the argument and analyze them insightfully”. It is impossible to discern the argument if you are focusing on tangential points and cannot explain the relationship between the various points presented.
To better understand the problems that may arise from a misunderstanding of the structure of the argument, consider this introduction from the essay on the above argument: “The argument that the luxury goods industry is declining due to higher levels of unemployment and consumer fears is not logically convincing because it depends on three dubious assumptions.” In this case, the author mixes one prejudice with the “argument” and cannot fully respond to the completion of the argument — the most important point, which explains why the other points are important in the first place. No matter how well written this essay is, he will never earn points higher than 3.5 or 4: he is doomed from the very beginning as a result of the impossibility of credibly summarizing the argument and focusing on its most important features.
GMAT Essential Council # 2: Criticize the premises before the conclusion
On the other hand, this does not mean that the writer should not focus on challenging the concessions of the argument or that the concessions are non-essential components of the argument. However, it is important to remember that the goal is not to challenge simply for its own sake, but to break the link between the promise and the conclusion that the argument tries to try.
Because the conclusion of the argument depends on the promises, it’s more logical to start by criticizing the rewards first before making the conclusion. However, pointing out the problem with the promise, the author should refer to the connection (or absence) between the premise and the argument, explaining how the specific problem identified with the promise casts doubt on the argument conclusion
To better understand the problems associated with considering a conclusion before an award, consider the following first two paragraphs from an essay:
The argument is made at a meeting of directors of a company producing parts for heavy machinery, while discussing the company's revenue. It is believed that delays in production are the cause of falling incomes, since, apparently, there are simultaneously delays in production and a decrease in income. Delays in production are associated with poor procurement planning of metals by the purchasing manager, who has an excellent history in business, psychology and sociology, but does not have a scientific understanding of metals. For this reason, it is recommended that the company replace the current manager of a research scientist. This argument makes many assumptions and failures to provide information about other factors that could be responsible for bad returns. Here this argument is erroneous and unconvincing.
First, he argues that a research scientist will have all the necessary prior business-related knowledge needed to manage the procurement department. He guarantees that there will be no problems with regard to inventory management and that scientific knowledge is sufficient for inventory management. This is not convincing, since information about the training, which the scientist would not provide in inventory management, or about the possible transfer of knowledge from the manager to the scientist, is not reported. The argument can be strengthened if information is provided about the training or transition.
Although the writer does an excellent job, summarizing the argument (sometimes too detailed for the introduction) and clearly recognizes how the conclusion derives from several problematic rewards, the writer's decision to defy the conclusion in the second paragraph, as opposed to later in the essay, undermines the writer otherwise strong. While the first few sentences of the second paragraph make valid points, the points made relate to the main issues: the reason (s) for the decline in income and the reason (s) for delays in production. Let us begin with a conclusion; the author in the example above implies fairness of concessions of argumentation, since there is no logical basis for considering replacing the current manager without both promises about the cause of these difficulties. Since paragraphs three and four really challenge both promises, the author undermines his criticism, starting with the position in which both promises are approved as valid.
As a rule, it is best to criticize ideas in argumentation in the order in which they are presented, so that the relationship between ideas can also be critically evaluated (except when the conclusion of the argument is presented before awards). In the example above, the author first had to challenge the idea that the decline in income was due to production delays, and then in the third paragraph the promise that the manager lacked the scientific basis for the production of delay was challenged. The second paragraph points will be introduced in the fourth paragraph, which begins with something like: “Even if we agree that the decline in revenues is due to production delays and that the current procurement manager lack of scientific knowledge was responsible for delays in production, There is still no reason to believe that replacing the current procurement manager with a scientist is the best solution ... ”
Criticizing the awards before the conclusion, the writer will increase momentum and logical force. Criticizing the writer on the rewards will work to show how the conclusion is problematic, and the conclusion of the essay will be much stronger. The writer would have many reasons to dispute the conclusion of the argument, in contrast to the current weak tangential arguments proposed in paragraph 2.
GMAT Writing Tip # 3: Know the different logical errors
Since there are about 150 official GMAT AWA themes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prepare for the exam by writing a practical essay on each of them. And it really is not necessary or advisable. The best approach would be to familiarize yourself with the general logical flaws or logical errors that appear in the official AWA topics, so that you can immediately identify the main errors in the reasoning in the argument that you are invited to criticize on your official GMAT exam,
For example, both rewards in the above argument, requiring replacement of a purchasing manager, are examples of the fallacy of a false cause: both promises determine a causal relationship between two separate events or conditions based simply on their coincidence in time or correlation. Most of the official AWA arguments repeat useful logical errors that are much easier to remember than the 100 arguments themselves.
Good GMAT courses and books will cover the most common mistakes (there is not enough space to do adequate work). After you memorize them, learn to identify a specific error in the argument, working through a list of official topics. Most importantly, the practice explains why a particular idea is logically invalid and how inaccuracy undermines the conclusion of the argument. Once again, the goal is not simply to indicate that there is a certain logical error in the argument, but rather to explain how this particular logical error casts doubt on the validity of the derivation of the argument.
We hope that the GMAT essay tips presented in this article will help clarify that what distinguishes a high result from a low-level AWA is something much more significant than a writer's ability to structure his essay, use transitions, and avoid grammatical errors. To write an excellent criticism of the argument, the writer must understand the structure of the argument and what constitutes a logical, rather than an unacceptable conclusion. Only then can the writer accurately summarize and effectively analyze the relationship between the ideas presented.
