2篇普林斯顿的文章，帮忙RATE一下，谢谢~~

tracyyahoo

AWA--Issue
Prompt: "Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."

Assignment: Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Nowadays, there is a controversial issue about whether salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of lowest-paid employees or be linked to those high-paid employees. Depending on personal experiences, beliefs and emtional concern, we may find that some people hold the opinion that those low-paid employees will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. While others have another opposite attitude. In fact, I disagree that what these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company. My viewpoint will be substantiated by the following discussion.

First of all, the most important reason for my view point is that high salaries are more important to attract talents to best serve for the company, they yeild high productivity and high profits for the company. To illustrate this, there is an approriate example that is very persuasive that the former president of Mircrosoft of China division TangJun. He is very diligent and smart employee and devote all his lifetime to better serve for the company. Based on high salaries and extra bonus offered by the company, he is more willing to work hard and trying to create a better workplace for his staff.
Under this situation, it is obvious that high salaries are prone to lure the best manager which originate greast impact on the company.

Another equivalent crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that low-paid employees aren't necessarily not helping for the company. For example, there are so many zero dollar salary CEO still committed to his company, because they vision a bright and broad future for the company despite of their good achievement on colleagiality and excellent sales volumn. So, as far as I am concerned, choosing a best executive candidate should some one who is very experienced, best qualified and loyal is a sagacious action.

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions those who get high salaries employees don't work hard to their employer and their productivity does refect equal to their salaries. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that all the employees who get high pay will do the same.As matter of fact, these cases are rare and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When advantages and disadvantages are carefully examined, more striking conclusion is that we should let those high-paid employees do their own work while we also should have our board of commitees of the company to supervise them on their daily work.

Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we may find that advantages of choosing best qualified employee outweight those of simply choosing the best employees based on their salary expectation , therefore, from what we have discussed we may safely come to conclusion that choosing those salaries of corporate executive who is highly qualified and experienced is rather wise decision.

AWA-Argument
Prompt: "Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."

Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, 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.

The conclusion of this argument is that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. The author employs serveral lines of reasoning to reach this conclusion. For one thing, author reasons that without new ideas, any society will stagnate. For another thing, author reasons that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. The argument is unconvincing for serveral reasons.

To begin with, the author assumes that there is relevance between new idea and freedom of speech. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is also possible that new ideas created by a conservative society. Hence without weighing and eliminating these and other casual explanations contributing to long term trend endorsed in the argument. The author can't soly contribute new idea to free of speech while convincing us of a suspect conclusion.

Seconly, the author claims that if a society is to thrive, all the limitation of freedom of speech should eliminated. But he fails to support his argument because that the prosperity of a society is not soly depended on new ideas, there are many other factors contributing to the growth of a society. For example, good import and export conditions which lead to a stronger economy of a society ,quality of its citizens create a better city and harmonious envoirnment for all the mankind to travel or big international events stimulate the GDP in the city and make people live in better place.

In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out all above factors, tries in vain to justify this argument. To better this argument, the argue needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the lines of reasoning. In assessing whether society will thrive by following by freedon of speech and new idea introduced by freedom of expression, I would recommend, by business point of view, the research on business feasibility emcompassing all the factors will be instrumental in minimizing any potential risks.

sherry717xxm

AI.

Nowadays, there is a controversial issue about whether salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of lowest-paid employees or be linked to those high-paid employees. Depending on personal experiences, beliefs and emotional concern(s), we may find that some people hold the opinion that those low-paid employees will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker(s’) productivity. While others have another opposite attitude(This is a sentence fragment). In fact, I disagree that what these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, (我猜想你是想说你不同意这个观点，然后你指出持有这个观点的人也许忽略了……但是你把这两句杂糅到一块儿了，就变成“你觉得这些人忽略……的观点是不对的”，也就是你支持你要攻击的观点了。汗，我说话怎么这么绕也不知道说清楚了木有)the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company. My viewpoint will be substantiated by the following discussion.

First of all, the most important reason for my view point is that high salaries are more important to attract talents to best serve for(serve is a transitive verb, so for is not needed) the company, they yield(yield) high productivity and high profits for the company. To illustrate this, there is an approriate(appropriate) example that is very persuasive that the former president of Mircrosoft of China division TangJun.(To illustrate this, I shall cite the persuasive example of Tangjun, the former…) He is very diligent and smart employee and devote all his lifetime to better serve for the company(devote to N. you can use to better serving the company). Based on high salaries and extra bonus offered by the company, he is more willing to work hard and trying to create a better workplace for his staff(he不能发出be based on这个动作，逻辑主语不一致). Under this situation, it is obvious that high salaries are prone to lure the best manager(s) which originate greast impact on the company.

Another equivalent(ly) crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that low-paid employees aren't necessarily not helping for the company. For example, there are so many zero dollar salary CEO still committed to his company(two verbs, ‘are’ and ‘commit’, appear in one sentence), because they vision a bright and broad future for the company despite of their good achievement on colleagiality and excellent sales volumn. So, as far as I am concerned, choosing a best executive candidate should some one who is very experienced, best qualified and loyal is a sagacious action(it is hard to understand this sentence).

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions those who get high salaries employees don't work hard to their employer and their productivity does refect(?) equal to their salaries. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that all the employees who get high pay will do the same. As matter of fact, these cases are rare and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When advantages and disadvantages are carefully examined, (a) more striking conclusion is that we should let those high-paid employees do their own work while we also should have our board of commitees of the company to supervise them on their daily work.

Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we may find that advantages of choosing best qualified employee outweight those of simply choosing the best employees based on their salary expectation , therefore, from what we have discussed we may safely come to (the) conclusion that choosing those salaries of corporate executive(s) who is (are) highly qualified and experienced is rather wise decision.



AA.

The conclusion of this argument is that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. The author employs serveral (several) lines of reasoning to reach this conclusion. For one thing, (the) author reasons that without new ideas, any society will stagnate. For another thing, (the) author reasons that new ideas can only be introduced in (to) a society that permits freedom of expression. The argument is unconvincing for serveral reasons.

To begin with, the author assumes that there is relevance between new idea and freedom of speech. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is also possible that new ideas (are) created by a conservative society. Hence without weighing and eliminating these and other casual explanations contributing to long term trend endorsed in the argument (没有谓语). The author can't soly (solely?) contribute new idea(s) to free of speech while convincing us of a suspect conclusion.

其实你这一段的topic sentence写错了。你想论证的是“新观点不一定仅存在于一个倡导言论自由的社会，保守的社会也会有新观点”，但是你第一句写的是作者假设新观点和言论自由有关。这个逻辑就错了，不是有没有的问题，而是是不是仅有它的问题。建议改成”the author assumes that freedom of speech is the only generator/incubator of new ideas”或者”only in a society where freedom of speech is guaranteed can there be new ideas created”

Seconly, the author claims that if a society is to thrive, all the limitation of freedom of speech should (be) eliminated. But he fails to support his argument because that( that is not needed) the prosperity of a society is not soly depended(ed) on new ideas, (.) there (There) are many other factors contributing to the growth of a society. For example, good import and export conditions which (that) lead to a stronger economy of a society , (and) quality (qualities) of its citizens create a better city and harmonious envoirnment for all the mankind to travel or (我猜你是想说两个例子，不应该用or啊) big international events stimulate the GDP in the city and make people live in better place(费解呀如果楼主想说两种例子那就分两句说吧，这样的长句含糊不清。。。。。。)

In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out all above factors, tries in vain to justify this argument. To better this argument, the argue(r) needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the lines of reasoning. In assessing whether society will thrive by following by freedon of speech and new idea(s) introduced by freedom of expression, I would recommend（有什么必要虚拟in assessing something, I do sth）, by business point of view, the research on business feasibility emcompassing (‘encompassing’ incorrectly modifies ‘feasibility’) all the factors will be instrumental in minimizing any potential risks.



In sum, there are several aspects lz can improve.

To start with, lz should practice more on typing, i.e., on composing essays on computer within time limit and without too many spelling mistakes.



Second, lz may want to do more sentence correction exercises. As I can see, lz is still unfamiliar with many grammar rules. For example, one sentence must and can only have one subject and predicate verb. To the other extreme of this rule, lz sometimes mix two sentences together, making it hard for readers to grasp what you want to convey.



Third, lz can try to make concise and precise sentences, as GMAT values the effectiveness of language usage. Many sentences in your essays convey nothing meaningful but frames and vague clichés. For instance, “Another equivalent(ly) crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that” can be worded as “Another equally crucial ground is that”.





My suggestion is that, time permitted, lz can read more sample essays. As to rating, since no one knows how human raters of AWA evaluate test-takers’ essays, I can not rate on your essays.

tracyyahoo

thank you for your efforts... But I think you only correct some grammer mistakes.  As far as I'm concerned that certain grammer mistakes can be allowed.. What I do want to know is that how do you think these two essay.  Is the example compelling or cogent enough to support my views. The overall passage smooth and easy to understand. Most importantly, I want you to rate my essay, then I know what level I am and where I can improve.

You can also give me your practice essay I can help you rate, Let's help each since there are few people like to read others AWA essays even in some forerign Gmat website.  I posted a lot but no one reply. We can help each other.. What do you think??

tracyyahoo

帮忙再帮我看看，帮忙RATE一下！！！

AWA--Issue

Prompt: Primary and secondary education should focus on training students for the highly specialized jobs of the future, rather than on providing them with a broad range of non-specific skills and information？

Assignmentiscuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Nowadays, there is a controversial issue about whether primary and secondary school should provide education on tranning students for highly specialized jobs of the future or offer them a broad range of non-specific skills an information. Depending on personal experiences, beliefs and emtional concerns, we may find that some people hold the opinion that school should just focus on trainning students for the highly specialized jobs of the future and ignoring other subjects while others have an opposite attitude. In fact, I think that school should both teach students education of specialized jobs as well as a broad range of non-specific skills and information. My view will be substantiated by the following discussion.
First of all, the most important reason for my viewpoint is that if schools simply concentrate on teach students on one area, the students will not have opportunity to acquire some of basic verbal knowledge and math theory. Lacking of this information and knowledge on students will lead to poor academic performance and serious side-effect on students' future career. To illustrate this, there is an appropriate example that is very persuasive: In technical school, school simply teaches students how to run or control machine, however school never teaches them how to create machine or how to create a unique product through running machine. These students only have one-sided expertise which is not competitive in today's job market. Under this situation, it is obvious that school should not only teach students some range of non-specific skills and information for them to acquire other sources of knowledge but also teach them specilized job skills.
Another equivalent crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that it is probably true in some conditions those experts graduated from technical school are favorable to some companies. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that all the companies favor those students. Some companies may like students with both art and math knowledge. As matter of fact, this cases are rare and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When advantages and disadvantages are carefully examed, more striking conclusion is that non-specific job skills and information is also important, even more important than specialized job skills. So, as far as I am concerned, the combination of teaching both knowedge is sagacious action.
Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we may find that advantages of teaching both non-speicfic job skills and specific job skill outweigh those of simply teaching one subject. Therefore, from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that choosing the former suggestion is rather wise decision.

AWA-Argument

Prompt: Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems.?/font>

Assignment:Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, 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. The conclusion of this argument is that any political organization that uses violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within its nation. The author employs several lines of reasoning to reach this conclusion. For one thing, the author reasons that since the short term solutions of violence will lead to more serious long-term problem in society. the violence should be forbided. For another thing, the author reasons that these groups are detrimental to society so such action is not allowed.The argument is unconvincing for several reasons. To begin with, the author assumes there are relevance between violence and safety of society. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is also possible that violence will help to solve problems within its society. Hence without weighing and eliminating these and other causal explanations contributing to a long term trend endorsed in the argument. The author solely attributes safty of society to violence while convincing us of a suspect conclusion. Secondly, the author claims that such groups are detrimental to society.But he fails to support his argument because that what if these groups are doing favors to the society. For example, The incumbent president of US, Barack Obama announced that he will put more troops in Afganistan and Pakistan within its boarder to solve political dispute. Such violence not only influence safty of its own citizens but that of others. In addition, United state is famous for internationa political war however it is still most powerful nation in the world. It is highly recommend that such violence should be judged whether it is friendly or hostile. If such violence action is hostile and unfriendly, we should prohibit it. In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out above mentioned factors, tries in vain to justify this argument. To better this argument, the arguer needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the lines of reasoning. In assessing whether safty of society can succeed by prohibitation on violence. I would recommend, from a business point of view, the research on the business feasibility emcompassing all the factors above will be instrumental in minimizing any potential risks.