I've read some of the essays posted on this board, and I'd be very surprised
   of most of them scored above a 4.5.
   
   Want to know how to score a perfect 6.0 EVERY TIME???
   
   Here's my story...
   
   I've taken the GMAT several times in my quest to score an 800.  I haven't
   reached that goal yet, but I'm almost there.  In any case, I've gotten a 6.0
   on my AWA every time, and guess what folks, its not that hard. But it seems
   as though some people here are missing the bigger picture and instead are
   attempting to create a literary masterpiece or demonstrate their mastery in
   penmanship.	And I see the same people scoring 4.5 or below on every GMAT
   test they take.
   
   Don't be creative!!!!  Be concise, insightful, and BALANCED.
   
   The questions they are asking are relatively straightforward, and you are
   expected to create an ARGUMENT for or against an idea.  The human reader
   will spend only 2 minutes reading your essay, so the more creative you get,
   the longer it'll take him to understand your point.	And after reading 100
   essays in the last 4 hours with 200 more to go, how do you think he'll
   reward you for making him take the extra three minutes and grasp your
   literary genius and "bask" in your creativity?
   
   
   I hope you get my drift...
   
   
   My suggestions...
   
   Start your essays by saying:
   
   I agree with the statement... or I disagree with the statement.  Yes, its
   simple, and not original.  Rather, very plain and boring.  But guess what,
   you're trying to convey a point, not make the New York Times.  I've used the
   same intro for each of my essays, and getting a 6.0 has never been easier.
   
   Also, explore arguments contrary to the position you are taking, and how
   they may "seem" correct.  Then refute those arguments with evidence or
   annecdotes.	If you only argue one viewpoint, your argument will lack
   balance, and it'll convey to the reader that you lack true analytical
   skills.  You are going to business school, and business leaders need to be
   analytical -- which means considering ALL alternatives.  Address the
   alternatives contrary to your own, then negate them.  Do this, and the 6.0
   is yours.
   
   Guys, getting a 6.0 on your AWA is VERY EASY.  Trust me, I've spent
   literally less than 15 minutes on each essay, and have gotten a perfect
   score EVERY TIME.
   
   
   Remember, don't be creative or attempt to WOW the readers with your literary
   style. This is a 30 minute essay.  You aren't expected to create a
   masterpiece, and the human reader, who by now has probably read over a
   hundred other essays in a 3 hour period, isn't prepared to decipher the
   works of the next Shakespear either.
   
   Be concise. Keep it simple, and DON'T BE CREATIVE.  Save the creativity for
   your applications!!!  Good luck on getting that perfect score!

Posted at: Mon Oct 2 02:59:48 2006 (GMT)

   Argument Topic is:
   When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more
   profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company
   should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a
   single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by
   cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all
   employees
   
   
   Analysis:
   The Apogee Company wants to centralize its field offices. They found that
   the profit of the company was more than today. The company feels that by
   doing so , the cost can be reduced along with that the employees can be
   supervised in a better way. The argument is flawed and, hence, not
   persuasive.
   
   Firstly, the turnover or the number of employees working in the Apogee
   company is not given. It is very important factor to decide the number of
   field offices to be mentioned. If there are thousands of employees at one
   location then it is good idea to have field offices at different locations.
   This will help in a better way to manage the employees locally at each
   office location. Also by doing so, the local clients at each field office
   location can be serviced in a better way by these employees.
   However,for example, if there are only some 10 employees working at each
   location then it is not good idea to maintain such field offices, as this
   will involve frequent travelling of manager to supervise employees, also
   co-coordinating with the management staff at every location will involve
   bottleneck in the decisions of the organization as whole. 
   
   Secondly, it is not given how the work at different location is
   interdependent. If the work at one location requires approval or subpart
   from other location to proceed their work then the geographical barrier may
   serve as obstacle to the delivery of product on time, because of reasons
   like, distance between the locations or the time zone difference, work
   culture difference etc. However if the final product is not interdependent
   on the different field location, and, can be manufactured at one location to
   be sold to clients then in that case it is good idea to have different field
   locations as by doing so the product can be manufactured and delivered to
   the local/nearby clients soon without involving huge transport cost too.
   
   Thirdly, how the location of field offices was chosen is not given in the
   argument. If the field offices are at manageable distance from the main
   office and also has plenty of clients located nearby then it is good idea to
   have such offices. This will help to serve the clients more efficiently as
   will not involve geographical barrier.
   
   Fourthly, it is not given how all field offices were coordinated. This is
   very deciding factor to the profit of company. If each office has its own
   management levels to manage their office then the monthly or quarterly or
   yearly report can be monitored for the revenue made at each location by main
   office, and, all responsibility can be handed over to local management at
   each location. This will reduce the bottleneck of monitoring the employees
   at different locations.
   
   Fifthly, how the work distribution among the offices was done is also not
   given in the argument. If the work is distributed to very distant offices
   then that may affect the profit of the company, as it involves the culture
   difference, time zone difference and hence the quality and time line of the
   product. Whether to centralize or distribute work also partially depend on
   product of the company too. For example in case of IT company the product is
   in electronic format which can be delivered via Internet too. So it is good
   to have centralized office too.
   
   
   In sum, it cannot be decided whether all the field offices should be closed
   and the company should be made centralized unless the factors like turnover,
   number of employees at each field location, the criteria for the field
   office locations, work co-ordination are analyzed. 

Posted at: Thu Jan 10 19:12:13 2008 (GMT)