GMAT/GRE AWA: OK to defend both sides? Can we "take the middle road?"

For (Issue) essays topic like below, Do I need to take one side. Or can I take middle path explaining that both kind of products are important and have their benefit. Some kind of products should be made to last long and other for should have main emphais on cost and in real world both types of products are required.

I sometimes takes middle path for question "Discuss the extnet to which you agree or disagree with opinion expressed"

People Often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out quickly wates both natural resources and human resources. What they fail to see is that such manufacturing practices keeps costs down for comusimer and simulate deman.

Which do you find more compleling : complain about product that do not last or response to it.

thanxs
xmen

[nutan606]

Hi
I have been through a few web sites and have found contrasting views about what should be written in issue topic. Some say one side MUST be taken and others say one can take the middle path, giving qualified support to both the sides. And this has confused me a lot. Could any one tell me what is the right approach?

[awhig]

Originally Posted by nutan606

Hi
I have been through a few web sites and have found contrasting views about what should be written in issue topic. Some say one side MUST be taken and others say one can take the middle path, giving qualified support to both the sides. And this has confused me a lot. Could any one tell me what is the right approach?

Well , it depends on the topic.If you feel middle path is correct then take middle stand.Generally, the topics given by ETS are such that they will compel you to take a side.

[amit_g]

Erin, in the first of the above two posts you say you advocate "sitting on the fence" though different schools of thoughts preach differently, and neither is wrong.

In the second of the two posts, you say in general you should take a stance.

Didn't you contradict yourself?

[Erin]

Originally Posted by amit_g

Erin, in the first of the above two posts you say you advocate "sitting on the fence" though different schools of thoughts preach differently, and neither is wrong.

In the second of the two posts, you say in general you should take a stance.

Didn't you contradict yourself?

I don't think I've contadicted myself. Here's what I say in the first post:

Whenever I have to write an essay on one of these topics, I take a 60/40 or 70/30 stance.

Perhaps this next part is confusing:

I am of the belief that one should discuss both sides of an issue.

Discussing both sides of an issue doesn't necessarily mean discussing both sides equally.

And in the second post:

The first rule is this: You must follow directions. If it says choose one, then choose one. If it says discuss both and choose one, you must do that.

In general, though, you must always take a stance, and not "sit on the fence."

I hope that's clear and doesn't need any explanation.

But, to summarize my opinions: I believe it helps an essay to discuss both points of view; however, I do believe that the essay must overall argue one view over the other, even though you may see merit in the opposite view.

Again, these are just my opinions. The person who reads your essay may not agree with me.

[papakehteyhain]

Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization.

Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal information—as a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employee’s family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social events—picnics, parties, excursions, and so forth—also help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into better working relationships.

Admittedly, employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers. Excessive chatting about non-business topics, frequent personal telephone calls, and the like, are always distracting. And romances between coworkers are best kept confidential, at least to the extent they disrupt work or demoralize or offend other employees. By the same token, however, employees who are too aloof—sharing nothing personal with others—may be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization.

In the final analysis, employees should strike a careful balance (strike a balance) when they mix their personal lives with their jobs. Although there are some circumstances in which bringing one’s personal life to the job may be counterproductive, for many reasons it is a good idea to inject small doses of personal life into the workplace.

[gmat168]

Why are some phrases highlighted in blue?

[THOCON]

Hi,Erin and every one.
I've read thru' all of yr posts, i also get confused that whether i shld strike a balance or encourage one point strongly.

Anyboy can help me in this topic?
#08 Official Guide
" For hundreds of years, the monetary system of most countries has been based on the exchange of metal coins and printed pieces of paper. However, bcos of recent developments in technology, the international community shld consider replacing the entire system of coins and paper with a system of electronic accounts of credit and debits"
Discuss the extent to which u agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/ or explames from yr own experience, observation, or reading.

Anybody can recommend your point of view? Because i'm thinking that computerized payment system is very useful in this century,hence it can be replaced the coins and paper system but someone may argue that how can poor people use the automatic system since they do not afford a PC in order to make transactions, and the idea of cashless world is unrealistic.
i need yr help so badly becos i'm taking the test in couple of weeks. But i'm not so confident in my writing.
Thanks all