PDA

View Full Version : AWA:Issue versus Argument



Muskan_1000WattSmile
01-29-2003, 01:18 PM
Hi Erin,

Iam new to the forum and this is my first post-it.
Before I pose my query I would like you that you guys are doing an excellent job. Your site is awesome. Tons of tips, links to tutorial sites,
softwares to build Voca.....Keep the good work!!!

I had a very basic query. I was reading about the new pattern for the analytical section on the GRE website .What I could perceive is that *There will be 2 sections :Issue and agrument.
*For the ISSUE section ,you are given two topics and you can chose
any one and debate over it.
Meaning fight for it or against it.

*For the ARGUMENT section there will be only one topic and you have to criticize it.

Do I understand it correctly?
Please reply.

Smiles,
Muskan

Muskan_1000WattSmile
02-03-2003, 01:12 PM
Folks,

Pls reply !!!

~Muskan

tsdvj
02-03-2003, 01:41 PM
I think you have understood the two things the opposite way:

Issue essay - You are given a topic and you have to write about the topic -- Usually, you are given a chance to take a stand - For example, let us say, the topic is:

Flatter organizational structures are more efficient than hierarchical structures.
You can say yes, flatter organizations are better or
no, hierarchical ones are better or
there are pros and cons in both, and you suggest a mix.

Argument essay - you are given an argument which usually has atleast a basic assumption and a conclusion. There may be additional elements like supplementary conclusions, expected objections to the argument and extra assumptions. You have to say whether the argument is sound or not. You may have to find loopholes or weaknesses in the argument and prove that the conclusion is not adequately supported. On the other hand, if you find the argument convincing, you have to prove that.

This is how it works in the GMAT. I guess it is the same in the GRE. Just check it out with the questions available to you.

p.s. That is a nice user-id, by the way -- you could have called it Muskan-1000Watt / 1000WattSmile

Shashank
04-26-2004, 05:31 PM
Please grade this essay. 1/2 time slot

Many people debate on whether a company should have hierarchical structure or flat structure. The author of the issue supports a flat structure to a hierarchical structure on grounds of co-operation and collegiality. In my outlook, a hierarchical structure is better for many reasons.

Firstly, a company needs many ingredients to succeed besides co-operation and collegiality; good leadership, motivation to succeed, and growth for its employees are some of them. We see many companies resuscitate themselves from almost bankruptcy to greater heights and the key reason for most of their success has been leadership. For example, Chevrolet was revived by Mr. Lee Iacocca from bankruptcy. Most of the credit goes to his great leadership qualities, his inspiring personality and his ability to motivate his employees. Moreover, an authoritative figure is also needed at times to settle dispute and make decisions which in a flat organization might get unresolved.

Secondly, in a company with hierarchical structure a worker is held accountable for his work to his boss. This ensures completion of work at the right time. Also, there are incentives for workers to go an extra mile in order to improve. Their efforts would be recognised by their leaders and would be rewarded. In a flat structure, since all employees are equal, the extra work done by someone would not reward in his promotion or a bonus. There is thus no incentive for workers to improve their skills. This lack of competition hampers the growth of company and its employees.

In conclusion, although flat structure has its advantages but I feel that its flaws out weighs its benefits. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that hierarchical order is better for a company since it leads to growth both for the company and its employees.