Please point out flaws in my issue analysis

[v.vkb16]

"Individuals living in capitalist economies suffer a higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies. Creating regulations that protect a society can’t help but interfere with free market forces, a basic tenet of capitalism."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The writer has put forward a very good point. He claims that a person living in a capitalist economy experiences a personal risk which is greater than that experienced while living in other types of economies. The writer feels that because such an economy has inherent regulations which on the outside are meant to protect the society, but on the inside hampers the flow of free market forces, there aren't many takers for this kind of economy.

Now, a capitalist economy is one where a majority of the factors of production in the economy are owned by private players.Such large scale ownership of essential industries in an economy by private players has the most obvious consequence- price manipulation. These private players have the hunger for profits.They, being the only suppliers of the commodity in the market, control the price of the goods they sell, much to the dissatisfaction of the consumer. Exhorbant prices will be charged for the products and the consumers will have no choice but to buy from these players, as no other source will exist.

For instance, company X operates in a country where there's no liberalisation and globalization of the economy.This is done to protect the domestic industries of the nation.As pointed out by the last line of the statements given, such regulations will disrupt the free market forces of demand and supply.Now, company X has the backing of the government as it is the only player in the industry. Thus, it will charge high prices for its products and since imports will have an abnormally high amount of duty levied on them, hardly any imports will be seen taking place in this economy. The result is an ever growing burden on the personal consumption expenditure of the consumers. Here is where the personal risk lies. Consequently, the standard of living ,of the nation as a whole, suffers.

Take the case of the same person living in a country where there is liberalistion, globalisation and privatisation of industries. There will be more competition among the industry players and thus price will be kept under control. The consumer will be charged a price which is much more fair and justified. This would thus not have a detrimental impact on the personal consumption expenditure of the consumers.Standard of living will not suffer and most importantly, concentration of wealth in few hands will be lesser. The personal risk therefore , in this case, would be much less as compared to the case in the previous paragraph. This is the kind of model every successful country follows. To prevent monopolies , the government of such countries incorporate the Anti-Trust laws , thus being fair to the ordinary consumer, ultimately leading to prosperity of the country.

In conclusion, the writer makes a statement which makes a lot of sense. Where there is control in few hands in an economy, the others will suffer without a shadow of doubt. This is true in the case of a producer-consumer model as well. An economy which prevents the formation of capitalism is bound to prosper in the long run, while a capitalist economy surely has a detrimental effect on the economy, where the consumers are the losers and the producers are the winners!

[StaceyKoprince]

Hi, thanks for posting your essays! Just an FYI that instructors don't grade or give feedback on essays (see the forum guidelines for details).

But I certainly hope other community members respond. Also, if you're in our class, you'll have an opportunity to get essays graded and get written feedback during the course (after class 6). Finally, you can get essays graded by GMAT Write (the official essay grading service from the makers of the exam) - they'll both grade the essays and provide feedback as to how to improve (for a fee). For details and pricing, go to www.mba.com and search for GMAT Write.

[thanghnvn]

I am not good at essay writing. but my idea is

your essay is hard to understand and your opinion is not clear.

I will write as the following template:

I agree that personal risk is higher in capital economy

1: in ther capital economy person is more easy to loose a job. bla bla

2: in the capital economy person is exploited by the employer. bla bla. bla

3. in teh capital economy person is eseaily abused sexually. bla bla bla.

in conclusion, my opinion is that person is at more risks in the capital economy.

EXPERT, PLEASE, CONSIDER MY TEMPLATE ABOVE. HELP PLEASE.

[StaceyKoprince]

Thanks for responding to a fellow student's essay.

Note that, in your outline and in the original essay above, you both use hypothetical examples. The GMAT is looking for examples of things that have actually happened and can be used as evidence to support your opinion / point of view. Either use events that have actually happened, or take your hypotheticals and turn them into real events (basically, pretend it happened to you in your company, or something like that).

[Jason.tuyj]

I agree with this. since most of official AWA articles write theory is like this.
I do not care much about what you write, but it is hard to read and easy to get lost in your artical about the points you want to make.

I am not good at essay writing. but my idea is

your essay is hard to understand and your opinion is not clear.

I will write as the following template:

I agree that personal risk is higher in capital economy

1: in ther capital economy person is more easy to loose a job. bla bla

2: in the capital economy person is exploited by the employer. bla bla. bla

3. in teh capital economy person is eseaily abused sexually. bla bla bla.

in conclusion, my opinion is that person is at more risks in the capital economy.

EXPERT, PLEASE, CONSIDER MY TEMPLATE ABOVE. HELP PLEASE.

[StaceyKoprince]

Thanks for weighing in, Jason.

[thanghnvn]

This is my response. I make the simple ideas but clear structure and content. I think that my ideas is too simple, but I think that is enough to get 5 score. Pls, comment.

Some person think that creating regulations that protect a society can help the problem of personal risk. Other think that creating the regulation dose not help at all because it interfere with the free market forces. This is complex problem. I support the idea that creating the relation dose not help.

First, the regulations can not help the problem. Personal risk exist in all economies not only in capitalist economy. Risk is only clear in capitalist economy and not clear in the other economies. I can give you an example of this. In the socialist economy, joblessness, inadequate healthe care and other things still exist although government tries to cover them. The matter exist inside. In the hospitals, medical insurance exist but not enough. In the capitalist economies, the matter is more clearer.

Because the risk exist, we can not disappear it. The regulation can not disappear it. I give you an example. In socialist economies, government wants to disappear the problem of bad health care by declaring that all persons can take medical care freely. This is meaningless. No one care you, you do not pay doctors. Go to hospitals in socialist country to see that .

Second, the regulation interferes with the market forces clearly. I can give you an example. When anybody can take medical care freely, no one try to earn money any more. This makes our society go down not go up. The market forces are destroyed. Only when persons have to pay for the medical care, persons want to make money for the medical care and the market forces are maintained. The maintaining help our economy go up. I will not work if I know that when I am sick I can get doctors freely. Any persons will be the same as I.

In conclusion, I agree that the regulation can not help to reduce personal risk and only interfere with the market forces.

[thanghnvn]

I think that for issue essay, the ideas can be flexible. In short, I think we can write any thing provided that we offer clear idea and structure. This is enough to get good score. I am non native and so can not use many new words but I can still convey rich ideas with normal word. I use to get 6 on toefle writing, using normal word. PLS, COMMEN ON THIS THINKING.

In contrast, analysis of argument requires us to declare 2 or 3 assumptions made by argument and critize them. So, the structure of the body will be: assumption 1-reason-explanation-how to strengthen, assumption 2-reason-explanation-how to strengthen, assumption 3-reason-explanation.


another thing, I post in this forum many time and require notification but not receive the notification. I already ask administrator but he/she dose not fix the problem . pls, help

[StaceyKoprince]

On analysis of an issue, yes, you can take any position that you want and still get a good score as long as you:
- have a clear thesis (usually, this is agreeing or disagreeing with the essay prompt)
- provide relevant, real-world examples
- write clearly and organize your essay well
- don't have too many spelling or grammar errors

Re: the notification issue, I don't think that feature works on our forums - I have never gotten any notifications, either. It shouldn't even offer you the option - just know that this feature doesn't work.