批判性思考并表达观点
GMAT™考试的分析性写作部分要求你分析给定论点的依据，并就此论点撰写一篇评论文章。该部分衡量你的批判性思维能力和用英语短文表达观点的能力。
分析性写作部分包括30分钟的论证有效性分析写作。与考试相关的论证包括与商业或各种其他学科相关的普适性的主题。你无需具备特定的论文题目知识；只考核你的分析性写作能力。
分析性写作部分中的论证有效性分析
论证有效性分析部分要求对给定论点的合理点进行讨论。为此，你需分析推理思路，以及论据的使用情况。在开始写作之前，你需花几分钟评估论点并规划答案。你需组织并充分展开观点。你可能需要留出时间重读答案并进行相应修改，但注意，你只有30分钟的时间。
分析性写作如何评分？
分析性写作文章通常结合两种方式进行评分：训练有素且公认的人工评分员和机器算法。如果算法分数和人工评分之间存在差异，则将由其他人工评分员审核分数并视情况作出调整。
分析性写作分数复议服务
你可申请由独立阅卷员复议你的分析性写作分数，所需支付的相关费用为45美元。你必须于考试日期后的六个月内提出分数复议申请，逾期将不再受理。
关于分数复议，要知道的五件事
- 分数复议结果为最终结果，即不能提交多次分数复议申请。
- 分数复议可能导致分析性写作分数增加或减少。
- 将于收到分数复议申请后约20天，向你和你指定成绩单接收的项目方发送修改结果。
- 分数复议申请一经受理，相关费用不予退还。
- 如需申请分数复议，请联系GMAT客户服务部。
注：GMAT的综合推理、定量推理和文本逻辑推理部分的分数不能被复议。
GMAT分析性写作官方练习——论文写作练习工具，有助于提升你的分析性写作部分的成绩。
测试你的分析性写作技巧
除了以下分析性写作部分的论证示例以外，你还可下载完整清单，其中包含GMAT所有可能的论证有效性分析题目。
论证有效性分析问题示例
指导
本部分要求你写一篇评论文章，评论所提出的论点。你无需就此主题发表你自己的观点。具体包括：
- 在开始写作之前，评估论点并规划回答
- 组织你的观点并充分展开观点
- 提供相关的证明理由和实例
问题
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 black lung. 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.
