GMAT高分作文范文
AWA的范文在书的最后一部分，但是书上只有一篇范文，没有其他的资料可以参考。世达教育今天为大家提供一篇满分的范文，该文章是MBA.com官方认可的语料库。
GMAT作文AWA写作的方法
1. 传统的七宗罪有点过时，但是这个是最原始的套路模板，缺点是考场上不容易梳理出文章思路。大家可以参考如下Chasedream论坛链接：https://forum.chasedream.com/forum-26-1.html 这个链接直接转到CD论坛，论坛里面网友的模板最多。
2. 世达教育研发出来的方式叫做“杠精”法: 就是逐词逐词的想，“what might go wrong?”
按照GMAT官方指南Official Guide上面的例子，我们尝试一下这个方法，找出题干里重要的关键词，然后，针对每个词都思考一个问题：“what might go wrong if something happen?” 我们找到的词是:
- computerized;
- on-board;
- warning；
- installed；
- commercial；
- midair;
- receive;
- signal;
- transponder；
- evasive action；
1. computerized： 既然是靠计算机算，机器不是万能的，依赖机器有可能计算错误。
2. on – board： 是需要额外安装的在飞机上，所以on board就有和系统兼容的问题。
3. warning： 警告仅仅是发出信号，如果没有正确的接收信号怎么办？如果不能明白信号的真实含义怎么办？
4. installed：需要技术人员安装，我们听说过一个“墨菲定律”，凡是人干的事儿，就有出错的可能！
5. midair：高空的环境几位复杂，有辐射，有光照，有气流，有地形影响，不是单纯的两机相撞问题。假如即使收到了正确的信号，但是飞机一转弯，撞到了山上，怎么办？
6. commercial：只有商用飞机能用，普通民航不能用。 （感觉思路有点偏僻？这一点在范文里写了！）
7. receiver：需要信号接收，如果受到干扰收不到信号怎么办？
8. signal： 如果信号太弱怎么办？如果信号中断怎么办？如果信号造成电压不稳定，或者飞机上的电池没电了怎么办?
9. evasive action: 在高空中两机相撞只有几秒钟，根本不可能在短时间内组织跳伞和撤离，如果接收信号仅仅是为了跳伞，那么这个方案太危险了。
我们在GMAT写作的过程中，你只要选择其中的三条来写就行了，这样子有很多很多点你可以选择来说，是不是自由很多？
世达小贴士：关于范文怎么用
- 可以把里面的那些比较牛逼的词汇记下来，考场上尽量用。
- 如果想练习一下的话，可以试着把给你的两篇范文在电脑上“打字”手打一遍，加深印象，也找一下现场写作的感觉。
- 按照语料库里的例题，自己写一写，找世达的老师给你做个评判。
MBA.com的官方范文，大家对比参考GMAT Official Guide后面的范文。
Question
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”
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.
Answer
The following is an actual AWA essay that received the highest rating:
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase.
However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausibility of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn’t necessarily mean that all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analyzing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting Blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e., coal mine). Before any decision is made, all these things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
