GMATPREP给出的AWA AA Scoring Guide及Sample

Scoring Guide

This section is designed to give you an idea how your essay will be scored. There are sample essays and answer explanations for scores of 2, 4, and 6 based on the following topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.

“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

To see sample scored responses, click on the icons.

	OUTSTANDING: 6 A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. A typical paper in this category— clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully; develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions; effectively supports the main points of the critique; demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety; and demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws.
	STRONG: 5 A 5 paper presents a well-developed critique of the argument and demonstrates good control of the elements of effective writing. A typical paper in this category— clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally thoughtful way; develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions; sensibly supports the main points of the critique; demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety; and demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws.
	ADEQUATE: 4 A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing. A typical paper in this category— identifies and analyzes important features of the argument; develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions; supports the main points of the critique; demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with reasonable clarity; and generally follows the conventions of standard written English but may have flaws.
	LIMITED: 3 A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in analytical writing skills and in its control of the elements of writing but is plainly flawed. A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: does not identify or analyze most of the important features of the argument, although some analysis of the argument is present mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas offers support of little relevance and value for points of the critique does not convey meaning clearly contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
	SERIOUSLY FLAWED: 2 A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing skills. A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: does not present a critique based on logical analysis, but may instead present the writer’s own views on the subject does not develop ideas, or is disorganized and illogical provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support has serious and frequent problems in the use of language and in sentence structure contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that interfere with meaning
	FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT: 1 A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing skills. A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: provides little evidence of the ability to understand and analyze the argument provides little evidence of the ability to develop an organized response has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that results in incoherence
	BLANK OR OFF TOPIC: 0 Any of the following will result in a score of “zero”: off-topic or blank response in a foreign language merely attempts to copy the topic consists only of keystroke characters

OUTSTANDING (6)

Sample Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.

“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”

Sample Paper:

The argument that a safer workplace will save employers money in their payroll expenses is a thought provoking one, but one with limited credibility, given the assmptions made and gaps in information provided. In my analysis, I will explore the assuptions made and list some gaps in information.

First, the author assumes that most companies agree that wages should increase for employees who face a greater risk of physical injury at their jobs. Is this true? Who are these companies? Statistics, if any are available, could support this assumption if they show that the "most" companies would support this idea. However, history and current forces in the job market would suggest otherwise. It is certainly not generally the case that jobs of higher physical risk are compensated at a higher rate. If that were the case, coal miners, who face considerable physical risk, would earn more than white-collar executives, who face almost none compared to the average person.

Second, the author assumes that the costs to ensure a safer workplace will be less than the costs of wages in a less safe workplace. This may not necessarily be the case. For example, a factory runs furnaces that emit somewhat dangerous gasses into the packing area. The operators who work in the packing area are exposed to these gasses and are thought to endure a greater risk than operators who work elsewhere in the plant. Raising the wages of packing area operators would surely cost the company less than rennovating their furnaces or even purchasing entirely new ones. Thus, the assumption that a safer workplace will decrease payroll expenses needs to be substantiated, because on the surface such an assumption is problematic.

The author could have mentioned numerous financial reasons to make the workplace safer other than savings on payroll expenses. These financial reasons carry more weight than the reason cited. They include decreasing the risk of costly law suits, increased productivity due to less time off for work-related illnesses or injuries and even loss of market share from competitors with safer workplaces. This last reason can be examplified by the cement business in Europe. European cement factories with newer, safer technology turn a greater profit than plants with older, dirtier equipment. Not only do these newer plants attract better workers, they also are seen to be more enviornmentally aware.

Financial reasons for workplace safety are important. However, arguments for workplace safety should be carefully thought out and backed up with clear evidence.

Explanation of Score: OUTSTANDING (6)

This paper presents a sophisticated, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. It clearly identifies the most important features of the argument and its major flaws in reasoning. In the second and third paragraphs, the writer discusses two fallacious assumptions presented in the argument. In each case the reader is provided with developed, cogent, and insightful analysis.

First, the writer calls into question the assumption that “most companies” would agree with the premise that employee wages should increase as on-the-job risks increase. The writer states, “Is this true? Who are these companies? Statistics, if any are available, could support this assumption if they show that the 'most' companies would support this idea.” Rather than stop here, the writer extends his or her argument with an excellent specific example: “It is certainly not generally the case that jobs of higher physical risk are compensated at a higher rate. If that were the case, coal miners . . . would earn more than white-collar executives.”

The second logical fallacy identified and discussed is that “costs to ensure a safer workplace will be less than the costs of wages in a less safe workplace.” This is followed by another specific example and accompanied by some insightful analysis. The fourth paragraph takes a sophisticated analytical turn, suggesting changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound: “The author could have mentioned numerous financial reasons to make the workplace safer other than savings on payroll expenses.” The writer follows this insight with several relevant possibilities and develops one of them with the appropriate example of the cement business in Europe. In terms of well-developed elaboration and explanation of ideas, this essay is outstanding.

The essay also demonstrates outstanding logical organization and arrangement of ideas: paragraph two analyzes the first sentence of the argument; paragraph three does the same for the second sentence of the argument; and paragraph four suggests changes that might strengthen the argument. Additionally, a brief introduction and conclusion nicely round out the paper, adding context and focus to the essay.

The essay also demonstrates a superior command of language, mechanics, and sentence structure. Paragraph two provides a good example of this outstanding command of language. In this paragraph, sentence structure is varied (“Is this true? Who are these companies? Statistics, if any are available, could support this assumption if they show that the 'most' companies would support this idea.”) and word choice is precise (“. . .compensated at a higher rate . . .” , “If that were true, coal miners, who face considerable physical risk . . .”). While the essay does have a few minor spelling errors, they do not detract from the overall excellent quality of the essay.

ADEQUATE (4)

Sample Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.

“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”

Sample Paper:

The assumption that companies could save money on payroll expenses by making the work place safer is not valid. There are two reasons why this arguement fails to be supported by its reasoning. First, risk of physical injury on the job cannot be directly measured so therefore cannot be a basis for pay. Secondly, the reduction of payroll expenses in favor of workplace safety may not be a money saving venture.

The risk of physical injury on the job varies from job to job so much that it cannot be directly measured; there are too many variables to consider. The individual employee is a variable that cannot be a constant in a pay equation. Physical injury could be caused by the employee rather than the workplace enviroment. The employee may not pay attention to what he or she is doing thus resulting in an accident that had nohing at all to do with the safety of the workplace at all. If the employee had his or her pay based on the fact that the workplace was safe, then in this case the companie loses money because of a short sighted view of how pay was to be based.

The second reason for the flawed arguement was that by creating a safe workplace, the company may have spent more than the payroll savings. Creating a safe enviroment to work can be a costly venture. New equipment, safety training, and reducing the hazards of the plant itself are all high cost items and will exceed any possible payroll reduction savings by a wide margin.

This arguement was too broad of a statement to be appliable over all industries. The arguement was not supported with any clear evidence. The leap that was made between payroll savings and workplace safety was not supported by any real example. Clearly, this argument was poor in structure as well as thought. The reasons stated above should have been addressed prior to the statement being made and then perhaps the author would have seen the flaws in the arguement and made adjustments to better support his or her reasoning.

Explanation of Score: ADEQUATE (4)

This paper presents a competent critique of the argument and demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing. Important features of the argument are identified and analyzed. The writer isolates two of the flaws in reasoning in the opening paragraph and spends the next two paragraphs analyzing and explaining them.

Clearly, the writer does a better job of developing and extending the explanation of the first point. Here the analysis is competent-the author suggests it is difficult to measure job risks because of the “variables to consider.” Chief among these variables is the employee: “Physical injury could be caused by the employee rather than the workplace environment. The employee may not pay attention to what he or she is doing thus resulting in an accident that had nothing at all to do with the safety of the workplace. . . .” While this paragraph is not developed with the extensive elaboration or perfectly clear logical connections that a paper at the 5 or 6 level might have, the solid elaboration that the writer has provided for this idea helps to differentiate this essay from a 3-level essay.

The second point is not as developed as the first. In fact, it reads more like a laundry list (“New equipment,” “safety training,” and “reducing the hazards of the plant itself”) than a developed argument. For this section to be more effective, at least one of the items mentioned would need to be developed more fully. However, the groundwork for another insightful and significant analytical point of the critique is laid, and even the presence of this list shows evidence that the writer fully understands the primary logical shortcomings of the argument. The soundness and relevance of the writer’s critique demonstrates that she or he understands the complexities of the argument’s flaws in reasoning.

Language control in the essay is competent, even though there are a number of minor language and usage errors throughout. There are a few problems with misspellings (for example, arguement, companie, nohing, appliable) and sentence structure (for example, “. . . resulting in an accident that had nohing at all to do with the safety of the workplace at all.” and “Creating a safe environment to work can be a costly venture.”), but the essay’s ideas are conveyed with reasonable clarity. Overall, this paper has earned its score of 4.

SERIOUSLY FLAWED (2)

Sample Topic:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.

“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”

Sample Paper:

We all agree with the idea that the workplace must be safer.But make it safer to reduce the payroll expenses of the employers doesn’t make sense.

If the employees are not well educated how to use the machines or the tools their lives or a part of their bodies are always in danger . But in the work there is always a minimum of saftey that must be respected and the insurance doesn’t recognize any accident in the workspace if the safty is not respected.

therefore, make theworkspace safety and save money are not match well together only in a special cases of industry that are really dangerous.In this case even if the workplace is safer there always a risk to take.in this condition the wages paid to employees should increase.

Explanation of Score: SERIOUSLY FLAWED (2)

This paper demonstrates serious weakness in analytical writing skills and fails to present an adequate critique of the argument presented in the test instructions. Most importantly, the writer has not taken care to organize this essay’s ideas as a logical critique of the argument presented, and has failed to clearly identify and explain the most significant flaws in reasoning contained in that argument. Also, a lack of organization and development of the essay’s ideas, coupled with the persistent and serious problems with grammar, sentence structure, and mechanics, keep this essay firmly in the 2 range.

The writer has demonstrated very little organization or development of the essay’s ideas. The second paragraph is a jumble of three ideas, none of which is developed or further explained. The paragraph begins by mentioning the lack of worker training on the machines they use; it then notes that “there is always a minimum of saftey that must be respected”; and, finally, the author suggests a connection between safety and insurance. However, the writer merely lists these ideas without giving any indication of how they are related, and then fails to explain how these ideas represent a critique of the presented argument. This shows a lack of a clear essay strategy on the part of the writer.

Furthermore, the essay contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that interfere with the writer’s ability to clearly convey his or her intended meaning (see, for example, the lack of clarity in the first sentence in paragraph 3). The paper gets weaker and weaker in its control of language, and the third paragraph is almost incoherent. The first and second paragraphs are slightly clearer, but even there the author has not shown any real competence with language or mechanics—note the vagueness and awkwardness of the phrasing throughout the essay, and the writer’s difficulty in constructing clear, well-connected sentences (for example, the poor structure in the second sentence of paragraph 1).