NEED HELP WITH AWA

[alicezyk]

I just started preparing for AWA, and I found out I have no clue how does it work.

For example, this argument from PREP.

"Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable all-day child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent."


Can I SAY "Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers" IS WRONG? OR SHOULD I TAKE IT AS FACT?? LIKE IN CR?

Another argument from PREP again:
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers"”some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."


AGAIN, can I say "After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. " is invalid?? No evidence stated to support?

I am just so confused what I should take as fact and what I can refute.

PLZ HELP!
Thanks in advance!

Alice

[Willy]

You can take any stand, either in favor or not in favor on AWA. But whatever side you choose, you have to prove your stand. Prove it with some examples and problems/drawbacks in the argument. There is nothing right or wrong on AWA.

[alicezyk]

You can take any stand, either in favor or not in favor on AWA. But whatever side you choose, you have to prove your stand. Prove it with some examples and problems/drawbacks in the argument. There is nothing right or wrong on AWA.

I actually hold different view from yours.
I think AWA is just like CR, where we are attacking the REASONING, the LOGIC FLOW.
Or else we can easily and simply attack anything that appears in the AWA, and it's pointless.

My understanding is that, just like in CR, we should find out flaws in how the Author reaches the conclusion.
If we simply points out the premise is wrong, of course the conclusion and everything else will be wrong...

But it seems like basically everyone is attacking everything. So I am confused.
Another student has the same problem as mine. In this thread.
please-provide-feedback-awa-argument-t15521.html

"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.

I'm doing my crash review for the AWA now and as I read the problem stem I can't help but think of it as a critical reasoning problem.

the part above bolded already states that the delays are due in large part to poor planning. So how can we attack any assumption here? I thought we should accept that fact and continue. The only attackable part seems to be "bringing in the scientist" as a replacement. For instance, why not as a technical advisor instead? Not only does the existing manager have a long list of managerial accolades, but presumably the scientist is not a people manager. so why throw the baby out with the bath water?

However, the "underlined" part I'm unsure of. It says "coincide". In any case, I would proceed with my argument assuming that they are causally related, meaning the delays are causing the reduction in revenue...

expert opinions would help me a lot here.

So instructor plz HELP.

[tim]

for the AWA, you should consider not only flaws in logic but also statements themselves that appear suspect. however, the examples you cite don't provide statements that i would consider suspect. you should question a statement if it appears obviously flawed, biased, or opinionated, none of which are true in these examples..

[alicezyk]

for the AWA, you should consider not only flaws in logic but also statements themselves that appear suspect. however, the examples you cite don't provide statements that i would consider suspect. you should question a statement if it appears obviously flawed, biased, or opinionated, none of which are true in these examples..

Thanks so much Tim.

How about in the following example: (from prep)
"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."

"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. " Are the 2 sentences taken as fact? I've read a lot of essays from students. most of them pointed out something like A coincide with B does not make B the cause of A.
But here it sounds not correct. In my opinion the first sentence is fact. But I am not sure about the second sentence, since delays in manufacturing does not need to be cause by poor planning in purchasing metals.

Also, I am wondering, in REAL GMAT test, does my point of view in AWA matter? Or I can just randomly refute everything.. Since I think the E-rater cannot tell the content..

Thanks again! :P

[tim]

whatever you do, DON'T try to game the system to fool the computer grader. all essays are also read by a human, and this will end badly for you.. :)

here's the thing: if it sounds like an opinion or just sounds impossible, question it. otherwise, accept it as fact. because this is pretty much the exact answer i gave to the question the last time it was asked, i fear i may be misunderstanding your question. if you have a question that has not been addressed by my two responses, please find a way to phrase it in such a way that i will be able to give you a different answer..

[alicezyk]

whatever you do, DON'T try to game the system to fool the computer grader. all essays are also read by a human, and this will end badly for you.. :)

here's the thing: if it sounds like an opinion or just sounds impossible, question it. otherwise, accept it as fact. because this is pretty much the exact answer i gave to the question the last time it was asked, i fear i may be misunderstanding your question. if you have a question that has not been addressed by my two responses, please find a way to phrase it in such a way that i will be able to give you a different answer..

Hi Tim!
Thanks for your fast reply :P
After reading what you said, I think my problem is actually that I cannot tell whether a sentence is fact or an opinion.

For example,
"These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. "
I was having a hard time deciding whether it's the author's opinion or a general fact..

Thanks again :P

[tim]

i usually tell my students to ask themselves whether this is something that could be looked up in a book. the fact that falling revenues happened at the same time as delays in manufacturing could be verified by looking in the company records to find out what dates things happened. saying that this was due to poor planning is definitely an opinion that would not be verifiable in the company records or any other objective source..

[alicezyk]

i usually tell my students to ask themselves whether this is something that could be looked up in a book. the fact that falling revenues happened at the same time as delays in manufacturing could be verified by looking in the company records to find out what dates things happened. saying that this was due to poor planning is definitely an opinion that would not be verifiable in the company records or any other objective source..

THANKS SO MUCH TIM!! This method works well!
:P
Thanks again!!!

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[alicezyk]

glad to hear it!

Thanks Tim.
You helped me a lot.
Just recieved my score. 6.0 :P

[tim]

that's great! thanks for letting us know..