GMATPREP给出的AWA AI Scoring Guide及Sample

hitlzc

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:

“People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. However, this approach is best for everyone—such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

To see sample scored responses, click on the icons.

	OUTSTANDING: 6 A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the complexities of the issue and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. A typical paper in this category— explores ideas and develops a position on the issue with insightful reasons and/or persuasive examples; is clearly well organized; demonstrates superior control of language, including diction and syntactic variety; and demonstrates superior facility with the conventions (grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor flaws.
	STRONG: 5 A 5 paper presents a well-developed analysis of the complexities of the issue and demonstrates a strong control of the elements of effective writing. A typical paper in this category— develops a position on the issue with well-chosen reasons and/or examples; is generally well organized; demonstrates clear 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 analysis of the issue and demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing. A typical paper in this category— develops a position on the issue with relevant reasons and/or examples; is adequately organized; demonstrates adequate control of language, including diction and syntax, but may lack syntactic variety; and displays control of the conventions of standard written English but may have some flaws.
	LIMITED: 3 A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in its analysis of the issue and in its control of the elements of writing but is clearly flawed. A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: is vague or limited in developing a position on the issue is poorly organized is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples uses language imprecisely and/or lacks sentence variety 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: is unclear or seriously limited in presenting or developing a position on the issue is disorganized provides few, if any, relevant reasons or examples has serious and frequent problems in the use of language and in sentence structure contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, or 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 develop or organize a coherent response to the topic has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that severely interferes with meaning
	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

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-1-16 10:59:20编辑过]

hitlzc

OUTSTANDING (6)

Topic:

“People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. However, this approach is best for everyone—such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.”

Sample Paper:

Many people feel that products are not made to last, and correspondingly, many natural and human resources are wasted. On the other hand, it can be noted that such manufacturing practices keep costs down and hence stimulate demand. In this discussion, I shall present arguments favoring the former statement and refuting the latter statement.

Products that are not made to last waste a great deal of natural and human resources. The exact amount of wasted natural resources depends on the specific product. For example in the automobile industry, the Yugo is the classic example of an underpriced vehicle that was not made to last. Considering that the average Yugo had (not “has” since they are no longer produced!) a life expectancy of two years and 25,000 miles, it was a terrible waste.

Automobile industry standards today create vehicles that are warrantied for about five years and 50,000 miles. By producing cheap Yugos that last less than half as long as most cars are warrantied, the Yugo producer is wasting valuable natural resources. These same resources could be used by Ford or Toyota to produce an Escort or Tercel that will last twice as long, thereby reducing the usage of natural resources by a factor of two.

Human resources in this example are also wasteful. On the production side, manufacturers of a poor quality automobile, like the Yugo, get no personal or profession satisfaction from the fact that their product is the worst automobile in the United States. This knowledge adversely affects the productivity of the Yugo workers.

Conversely, the workers at the Saturn plants constantly receive positive feedback on their successful products. Saturn prides itself with its reputation for quality and innovation — as is seen in its recent massive recall to fix a defect. This recall was handled so well that Saturn’s image was actually bolstered. Had a recall occurred at a Yugo plant, the bad situation would have become even worse.

Another factor in the human resources area is the reaction by the consumer. A great deal of human resources have been wasted by Yugo owners waiting for the dreaded tow truck to show up to haul away the Yugo carcass. Any vehicle owner who is uncertain of his/her vehicle’s performance at 7 AM as he/she is about to drive to work, senses a great deal of despair. This is a great waste of human resources for the consumer.

While the consumer senses the waste of natural and human resources in a poor quality product, so does the manufacturer. People who argue that low quality manufacturing processes keep costs low for the consumer and hence stimulate demand should look at the Yugo example. In the mid-1980’s the Yugo was by far the cheapest car in the United States at $3995. By 1991, the Yugo was no longer sold here and was synonymous with the word “lemon.”

Explanation of Score: OUTSTANDING (6)

The response above is ambitious and somewhat unusual in its focus on just one example, the lesson of the now defunct Yugo. Responses, especially outstanding ones, typically discuss several different examples that build support for the writer’s position on the issue. This sample response, then, should not be taken as necessarily endorsing a one-example writing strategy. What it does serve to underscore is how much is to be gained by developing, not just listing, examples. The strength of the response lies in the organized and thorough way in which it explores the related aspects of the example it cites. The clear organizational scheme (two major points, with the second point subdivided) is readily apparent: Yugo’s substandard cars (1) waste natural resources and (2) waste human resources by (a) destroying worker morale and productivity and (b) inconveniencing and upsetting customers. The persuasiveness of the writer’s thinking is especially evident in the discussion of the second major point, the waste of human resources. Here the writer not only considers customers, in addition to workers, but also introduces the matter of the Saturn recall in order to show, by contrast with the case of Yugo, how a superior product, satisfied workers, and a company image that is good for marketing are interrelated.

The response complements its outstanding organizational clarity and thorough development with some sentence variety and an occasional rhetorical flair (e.g., the image of the despairing Yugo owner waiting for “the dreaded tow truck . . . to haul away the Yugo carcass” in paragraph 6). It is important to point out, however, that the writing is not perfect. For one thing, the opening paragraph is essentially a repeat of the question. In addition, the writing is not—and is not expected to be—entirely free from minor flaws (e.g., “profession satisfaction” [paragraph 4] should obviously be “professional satisfaction,” and “Saturn prides itself with” [paragraph 5] should be “Saturn prides itself in”). Nevertheless, these occasional flaws are not serious enough to detract from the general impression that this is an excellent response to the question.

hitlzc

ADEQUATE (4)

Topic:

“People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. However, this approach is best for everyone—such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.”

Sample Paper:

I find the response to the complaint more compelling. Although the complaint is valid, it is most often the case the building a product to last forever will indeed cost more than the average consumer is willing to pay. Creating such a product would require more materials and/or more heavy-duty wear resistant materials which inherently are more expensive. Another factor that would drive costs up is the fact that demand for products would decrease. The demand would decrease since people do not have to replace old products with new product as often. With the increased variable costs for materials combined with a reduction in the production volume associated with lower demand, manufacturers must raise prices to break even or maintain the current level of profits.

Although a few producers may make products to last, it is understandable how these companies can be driven out of existence. If a new competitor enters the market with a similar product that has a shorter life but a substantially lower price, then they will probably steal major portions of the other company’s market share. The effects depend heavily upon the consumers’ perception of quality and what the customers requirements from the product actually are.

For example, consumers may decide between two types of automobiles. One car may be built to last a long time but may not have the performance or be as comfortable as another car that is cheaper. So most consumers would purchase the cheaper car even though it may not last as long as the heavy-duty car. Consumers may not realize that the more expensive car is of higher quality in the sense that it will last longer and will not be willing to pay the extra cost.

Consumer decisions also depend on what consumers are actually looking for in a product. Consumers typically get tired of driving the same car for many years and want to buy new cars fairly often. This tendency forces producers to keep costs low enough to allow low enough prices for people to buy cars often. People don’t want cars to last forever.

In conclusion, producers are in the situation that they’re in due to external forces from the consumers. Producers must compete and they have found the best way satisfy the majority of the consumers.

Explanation of Score: ADEQUATE (4)

This response presents a competent analysis of the issue. It develops its position by explaining some of the ways in which the factors mentioned in the question— manufacturing costs and consumer demand—are affected by making products that do not last very long. By way of illustrating this point, the response cites the example of consumers choosing automobiles. Although this example is relevant, it lacks specificity: no actual types of cars are described in terms of the key issue, durability, and no contrast between more and less durable types is developed to prove the point.

Although the response is competently organized and therefore generally easy to follow in its main lines of reasoning, its clarity is marred by an awkward transition from the second paragraph to the third. The main idea of the second paragraph is that many consumers will abandon a made-to-last expensive product in favor of a substantially cheaper version with a shorter life. But the last sentence of this paragraph, a sentence that is unclear about what it is referring to, marks an abrupt change in the direction of the entire response. “The effects” (the word, used loosely and unclearly, seems to refer to the consumer’s final decisions about what to buy) are seen to depend not only upon the simple choice between cost and quality but also upon a whole set of new forces—aspects of consumer psychology and “requirements” (consumer needs?)—that now suddenly and puzzlingly face the reader. Although the third and fourth paragraphs go on to develop the writer’s views about these new forces, the reader never quite recovers from the sense that the response has abruptly changed course. Moreover, the consideration of consumer psychology and “requirements” causes the writer to stray into side issues. For example, pointing out that customers may choose a car on the basis of performance and comfort rather than durability has no direct bearing on the complaint that products are not made to last.

The wording of this response is generally appropriate, although language use is occasionally awkward, as in “keep costs low enough to allow low enough prices” (paragraph 4) and “producers are in the situation that they’re in” (paragraph 5).

hitlzc

SERIOUSLY FLAWED (2)

Topic:

“People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. However, this approach is best for everyone—such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.”

Sample Paper:

I find the response better than the complaint of people. The response seems to originate without much thought involved. It is more of an emotional complaint than one anchored in logic or thought. Yes, it is a waste of human resources but that is without consideration to the benefits: lower costs and stimulated demand. Thus, the response fails to recognize the benefits.

The strength of the response is that it forces the reader to reconsider the complaint. It adds a new dimension to the argument. It, however, fails to address the issue of wasting human resources. Does this mean the responder agrees with the notion of wasting resources.

In all actuality both the response and complaint as ineffective. The complaint doesn’t recognize or address the benefits, like the response doesn’t address the issue of wasting resources. The response, however, does bring in a new dimension and thus weakens the argument of the complaint.

Explanation of Score: SERIOUSLY FLAWED (2)

In this piece of writing, the writer’s purpose seems to waver between defending “the response” against “the complaint” and weighing the relative strengths and limitations of both. In addition, the writer offers no new reasons or specific examples and so ends up merely repeating assertions made in “the complaint” and “the response.”

The writing is marked throughout by vagueness. The writer’s decision to adopt the terms “response” and “complaint” as a convenient shorthand for the two positions leads immediately to a confusing lack of specificity, compounded in the first paragraph by the fact that the two terms are mixed up (e.g., “response” in the second and fifth sentences is meant to refer to “complaint”). The first paragraph is made even more confusing because the pronouns “it” and “that” lack antecedents in the sentence “Yes, it is a waste of human resources but that is without consideration to the benefits.”

The general lack of clarity is made worse by errors in conventional English grammar and usage, most of them concentrated in paragraph 3. The first sentence begins with an informal, nonidiomatic phrase (“In all actuality”) and lacks a verb (“both the response and complaint as ineffective”). The second sentence incorrectly uses like instead of just as: “The complaint doesn’t recognize or address . . . like the response doesn’t address.” In short, the writing fits the description of seriously flawed prose in the scoring guide: it displays “serious and frequent problems in the use of language and sentence structure.”