GMAT AWA Sample
Here is a GMAT AWA sample for practice purposes. There are several other kinds of samples available for candidates.
Question/Topic:
Most companies agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.
Sample:
Introduction:
The argument states that employers will find it financially prudent to enhance workplace safety since lower wages could then be disbursed to their employees. The conclusion is based on the assumption that with increasing risks of physical injuries to employees, their wages should witness a corresponding increase accordingly. Yet, this argument has numerous assumptions that are unsupported by relevant facts. For instance, the argument automatically assumes that the costs related to workplace safety do not outstrip the higher payroll costs on account of conditions that can be termed as hazardous or unsafe.
Paragraph 1:
The core aspect being tackled is whether higher costs of labor serve as a justification for sizable capital expenditure to enhance the professional environment. A safer workplace would cost at least $200 million as compared to extra payroll costs of just $50,000 annually. Hence, it would make sense for any organization to pay just the higher wages. Putting this into perspective, I believe companies should undertake cost-benefit evaluation in such scenarios, but it may not be the only determinant in relation to moral, social, and ethical parameters.
Paragraph 2:
At the same time, not every work environment can be transformed into a safer one. To illustrate, with regard to mining coal, companies have limitations in ensuring safer workplace environments. Some entities can implement a few safety measures without being able to offer all necessary safety regulations. Mining companies will have restricted capabilities with regard to controlling overall air quality within coal mines and hence will be unable to control respiratory risks fully. The job profile will always be hazardous, despite the company’s best intentions.
Conclusion:
To conclude, while it may initially seem prudent to enhance work environment safety, it may not always be a sound decision. Companies may not always have financial prudence as their core issue. Other evaluations are required, including the ethical and social ramifications of a work environment with limited safety and the ability of companies to ignore such environments and implement a few measures in their control. Prior to any final decision, all these elements should be taken into consideration, and not only lower payroll costs.
Cracking the GMAT analytical writing section is not hard, provided you emphasize regular practice and argumentative flair. Reading the topic/question is essential before you start writing, along with organizing your ideas beforehand.