June 30, 2012
Often times, the portion of the GMAT most neglected by students is the writing sample. While this section of the test is certainly less important than your overall 200 to 800 score, you still want to make sure that you know how to handle it.
The essay is graded on a scale from 1 to 6 and most business schools are expecting you to achieve a score of 4 or higher. While the difference between a 4, 5, or 6 is not all that influential on your admissions prospects, receiving a score lower than a 4 can have a negative impact on your application.
While the integrated reasoning section, which was recently added to the GMAT, replaced the issue essay, the argument essay remains a part of the test. In fact, it will be the very first section you see on test day.
The key to the essay is answering the question that GMAT test maker is asking. This can be trickier than you would think. The writing sample is all about analyzing the argument made by the author, not providing your own viewpoint on the topic. Therefore, it is essential that you do not agree or disagree with the author’s opinion. Rather, you need to analyze the argument the author makes to reach his/her conclusion.
To do so, you will need to look for flaws in the author’s reasoning. Specifically, you will want to identify any faulty assumptions that the author makes. Additionally, you will want to offer potential strengtheners – facts that, if they were true, would make the argument more sound.
You may notice that these skills are similar to those employed in the critical reasoning portion of the verbal section. This is not a coincidence. Both parts of the test are all about breaking down the argument and not about the accuracy of the opinion presented.
In order to get an idea of the types of arguments that appear on the GMAT, you can visit the test makers website, mba.com, and view a complete list of possible essay topics. It is a good idea to practice taking a few of these arguments apart and writing essays before test day.
If you want feedback on how to identify the flaws in an argument, post the argument and a bulleted list of the flaws you notice in the comments below. We’ll help you fill in the gaps.
June 13, 2012
Scene: a busy street. A businessman in a suit and tie stands before a cloth covered table. A fortune teller sits on the other side of the table, peering into a crystal ball.
Fortune teller: “I see danger in your future, you are at grave risk! For $20, I shall peer into this crystal ball and tell you how disaster can be avoided!”
Businessman: “What a load of $&#%! Fortune telling is nonsense, and there is no way you could see my future through the crystal ball. I’m certain I’m in no danger whatsoever!”
Businessman walks across the street without looking and is run over by an ice cream truck.
So, GMAT students, was the fortune teller right? Was she genuinely psychic? Did her crystal ball receive emanations from the spirits predicting the future?
Of course not. Scientific consensus is that psychic powers don’t exist, and even the superstitious must acknowledge plastromancy as the superior form of divination.
But the businessman made a critical mistake: he made what’s known as the“Fallacy Fallacy,” mistaking a flawed argument for a false conclusion. Sure, the crystal-ball reading was a foolish basis for arguments about danger. But as the old saying goes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Anyone standing on a busy city street is at low-to-moderate risk. Although the fortune teller has no justification for her claim, she happened to be right that the businessman was at risk through accident of location. And the businessman, foolishly assuming himself to be perfectly safe, compounded his risk through his own poor logic.
When you see the Analytical Writing Assessment (which remains on the New GMAT), bear in mind this example . The argument you are given will invariably be terrible, but you can’t dismiss the conclusion solely on that basis. Moreover, the GMAT essay prompts will generally refer to fictional people and business in made-up locations. That means there are countless unknowns and hypotheticals that make definitive judgment impossible.
To plan your response to the AWA, consider the businessman. His proper response would be, “Your crystal ball isn’t persuasive. If I’m at risk, it’s because of factors you can’t possibly be aware of. And if I do get hit by a car, it won’t be because of your crystal ball. Now, excuse me, I need to wait for a walk sign.” And so, when analyzing an argument on the GMAT, you should always conclude the same way. Make clear that the author could be right—he could be lucky, a confluence of factors could make his plan work or bring his prediction to fruition. But his evidence will invariably be lacking, and his logic will certainly rely on improbable assumptions. Go on to explain that he must be lucky for his conclusion to be valid, because luck is the only thing he has going for him.
Question of the day:
Our company’s chief financial advisor is outstanding. Of the ten stocks she invested company funds in over the past year, eight have increased in value, two of them by more than three times the market average. Unfortunately, we know that one of our competitors has been attempting to hire our employees away from us, and she is likely to be on that competitors list of targets. To retain her services, we should substantially increase her salary, contingent on her willingness to sign a non-compete agreement.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the reasoning in the statement above?
Let’s analyze this together. Take this argument apart and post your thoughts here. Then I’ll jump in and help put it all together…
June 10, 2012
June 5, 2012 has finally come and gone. To those of us within the gravitational pull of the GMAT, this date was no less than a celestial event. June 5th not only marked the transit of Venus across the sun, but also the launch of the New GMAT.
What has changed? A new section called Integrated Reasoning (IR) has replaced the Analysis of an Issue essay and taken its time allotment. Hence, the GMAT is still the same total length. That is, you write a 30-minute Analysis of an Argument essay, then take the new 30-minute Integrated Reasoning section, then take the 75-minute Quantitative section, and finally complete the 75-minute Verbal section (note: you get two 8-minute breaks; one between IR and Quant, and then another between Quant and Verbal).
Integrated Reasoning questions appear in four different formats and across twelve questions total in the 30-minute time frame. The formats are: Graphics Interpretation, Two-Part Analysis, Table Analysis, and Multi-Source Reasoning. A given prompt, or question setup, may have multiple questions and, like the rest of the GMAT, IR is computer adaptive at the question level. Thus, once a question has been answered, you cannot return and change the answer. It is also interesting to note that test takers have access to a very basic on-screen calculator during this section only (i.e., still no calculators on the Quantitative section).
I have written at length about the New GMAT in previous posts and invite you to read through them to learn more (here’s a dozen: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve). However, I am much more interested in your actual experiences over my anticipated ones. We want to hear from the pioneers out there—those of you who have been among the first to take the New GMAT.
What was it like?
How did you prepare?
Was it challenging?
Did you really feel like the questions were forcing you to integrate reasoning?
What surprised you?
While Venus will not traverse the sun again until 2117, brave explorers destined for b-school greatness will take the New GMAT just about every day from here on in.
Tell us about your experience blazing the trail that others will soon follow. If you have taken it, we want to hear about it! Boast, warn, and teach – whatever you think the experience calls for…
Here’s another fun fact: A computer can score 16,000 essays in 20 seconds (and does it just as accurately as the human).
A new study out of the University of Akron published some very intriguing findings on the efficiency and accuracy of automated readers (aka, robo-readers, e-Raters, e-graders, etc.). A team of researchers used more than 20,000 essays across eight different prompts and nine different programs to evaluate our electronic counterparts and the algorithms that govern them. Turns out, not only are these programs staggeringly more efficient, but they are also just as accurate as their human workmates. Sorry, John Henry.
So does this mean that GMAC is keeping mere mortals on the payroll out of pity? Or perhaps to protect themselves from the wrath of an angry mob of Luddites? An MIT researcher says no. According to Les Perelman, the e-grader’s most significant problem is its inability to identify truth. He also claims that while a robo-reader may be extremely accurate in giving scores as compared to human derived scores, it is both possible and easy to game the system. In other words, you can learn to write in the way a computer is designed to reward. [And, by the way, Kaplan can teach you how to please both circuitry and gray matter.]
For now, the world—and the GMAT—still need a human touch. Bear in mind, though, that while you may spend thirty minutes toiling and sweating over your Argument or Issue essay, that ‘human touch’ will spend just 120 seconds skimming your creation. I’ll leave you with an insightful quote from a Discover article:
“And as for human essay graders, they have only a couple minutes to come up with a score. When you’re under that kind of pressure, machine-like behavior is the best you can hope for.”
April 27, 2010
Video 12 in a series of official excerpts from the Kaplan GMAT program. This video covers the grading criteria for Analytical Writing essays. The instructor is Dennis Yim – over 700 students taught and counting.