Introduction:

1. [Source] argues that [restate argument].

2. As it currently stands, the argument relies on assumptions without clear evidence and fails
to address key points which undermine the conclusion as a whole.
3. Consequently, the argument has several flaws which make it unconvincing.
4. Until [flaw 1], [flaw 2], and [flaw 3] are dealt with, this argument cannot be seen as viable.
Body Paragraph 1:
1. [Transition such as "First of all", "Firstly", "For one", etc] the argument asserts…
2. The author's claim seems highly unlikely because…
3. The argument could be strengthened if it had provided evidence that [analysis].
4. This possibility proves that the conclusion vulnerable.
Body Paragraph 2:
1. [Transition such as "Secondly", "Also", "In addition", etc] the argument claimes that [clearly
identify second logical fallacy].
2. Again, this is a weak claim with no substantive support that there is any correlation between
[item A] and [item B].
3. However, if the author would have provided evidence that [analysis], the argument would
have been strengthened.
Body Paragraph 3:
1. Finally, the argument concludes that [clearly state the conclusion the argument reaches].
2. However, it still remains unclear [analysis/state the unanswered questions which should be
addressed].
3. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide evidence to support [analysis].
Conclusion:
1. [Transition such as "In conclusion", "In summary", etc], the argument is not convincing
because of the above-mentioned flawed reasoning.
2. If the author had clearly mentioned [the missing relevant information OR feel free to include
specifics you mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3], the argument would be considerably
strengthened.
3. In its current state, the author's argument that [insert argument] is weak and unsound.
Sample Analysis-of-an-Argument Writing Prompt

The following appeared in a memorandum issued by the human-resources department of Capital Bank:

"Capital Bank has always required that its employees wear suits at all times while at work. Last month, Capital’s
employee absenteeism and attrition rates both reached all-time highs. In order to reverse these trends, Capital should
adopt a company-wide "casual Friday" policy, under which all employees would be permitted, and even encouraged,
to dress casually for work every Friday. After all, most companies in the software industry allow their workers to dress
casually for work anytime they want; and those workers often remark that this policy enhances their job satisfaction.
Moreover, most software firms experience lower rates of employee absenteeism and attrition than companies in other
industries, including banking."

Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of
reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions
underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be
appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional
evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.

Following is an essay that responds to the above prompt. As you read the sample essay, keep in mind:

 Each of the three body paragraphs isolates and discusses a different problem with the argument. (A typical
GMAT argument will contain 3-4 major reasoning flaws.)
 Some phrases are highlighted to help you see the structure of the essay and how it responds to the directive.
(The exam's basic word processor does not provide this feature.)
 The essay is intended as a benchmark response — one that would earn a top score of 6 based on the AWA
evaluation and scoring system. Though brief enough to plan and type in 30 minutes, it was not composed under
a strict time limit. Be assured that you can attain a top score with an essay that's less polished and somewhat
briefer than this one.

Sample Analysis-of-an-Argument Essay (440 Words)

This argument concludes that a "casual Friday" policy would reverse Capital Bank’s high absenteeism and attrition
rates. This conclusion, based solely on certain comparisons with the software industry, is tenuous at best. The memo
fails to address important differences between the two industries and between dress codes, other possible reasons for
Capital’s problems, and potential problems with the cited statistics.

First of all, the memo assumes that since software workers prefer casual attire, so would bank employees. But this
might not be so. People attracted to finance jobs are generally more oriented toward authority and wealth, and thus
prefer to wear suits to impress and intimidate. Therefore, a "casual Friday" policy might have no positive impact on
morale at Capital. It might even backfire, prompting even more workers to leave the company. The memo also
assumes that a "casual Friday" policy is similar enough to the software industry’s dress codes to have the same effect
on job satisfaction. But would just one casual day per week be enough to reduce absenteeism and attrition? Possibly
not.

The memo further assumes that the dress code is to blame for Capital’s high absenteeism and attrition rates, without
considering other possible explanations. A high absenteeism rate might be due instead to other working conditions,
such as poor ventilation or cafeteria food, while a high attrition rate might be explained by such factors as inadequate
salaries or benefits. Since the memo hasn’t ruled out these sorts of possibilities, the conclusion that a "casual Friday"
policy will solve Capital’s problems is, at best, weak.

Finally, the statistics cited in the memo seem unreliable. One cannot draw any firm conclusions about job satisfaction
from "remarks" made "often" by software workers unless the remarks are backed up by a proper survey of a
sufficiently large and representative sample. Nor can one draw any firm conclusions about employee absenteeism and
attrition from a single month’s data. Last month’s data might have been a one-time-only spike (to which the memo’s
author over-reacted). Even if not, the monthly variation in itself tends to show that the dress code, which has
remained the same, is not to blame for last month’s data.

In sum, the memo has not convinced me that worker preferences and dress codes in the software industry are similar
enough to Capital’s workers and the proposed policy to ensure that the "casual Friday" policy will have the desired
impact at Capital. Nor has the memo convinced me that Capital’s current dress code is the actual cause of the
absenteeism and attrition problems in the first place.