Joined: 08 Sep 2010
, given: 3
Request for Evaluation-D-day in 3 days [#permalink]
06 Oct 2010, 11:52
This was part of my MGMAT Mock test. Would highly appreciate any inputs on the essay. I am very close to the exam(3 days) and feel like I have utterly neglected AWA upto this point. Would be highly in your debt if anyone could review this for me. This was written within the timelimit of 30 minutes.
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT
The following appeared in a strategy memorandum of an investment company:
“Over the past several years, investment in precious metals, such as gold and silver, has proven to be one of the most profitable investment strategies for our firm. Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong, largely driven by the economic growth of large emerging markets--China, India, and Russia. Thus, our investors are best served by increasing their exposure to precious metals to take advantage of this unique profit-making opportunity.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE: The argument claims that investors are best served if they invest in precious metals, such as gold and silver, because the demand for such metals is set to rise. The argument goes on to support this validation by stating that the economic growth of large emerging markets like China, India and Russia will ensure that the demand for such products remains high. In addition the company says that since investment in precious metals has been the most profitable strategy in the past several years, such a trend will continue. The argument is seemingly sound but makes some rather bold unsubstantiated arguments, with poor evidence, that casts some serious doubts on the conclusion drawn.
Firstly, They claim that such an investment strategy has proven to be one of the most profitable strategies of their firm, thus implying that it will continue to be profitable in the future. The argument fails to mention if this profit was sustained in a stable manner or if it was average of some very good performances against some poor performances. The lack of such an evidence is crucial because investors may pull out of the investment at any time and it is in the best interest of their investors that a stable profit making strategy be followed. Moreover, They fail to provide any information regarding the supply of such precious metals in the global market. Is the supply regulated? What is the likelihood of a supply surge by discovery of new mining grounds? Answering such questions would remove doubts regarding the risk involved in this strategy and make this argument more compelling.
Furthermore, the argument states that the demand is expected to be strong. The evidence provided in support of this statement is that the economic growth of large emerging markets such as China,India and Russia will drive this demand. Here, the author makes an assumption that emerging global markets mentioned above will invest in precious metals. There is no evidence in support of such a assumption. Neither do they provide any evidence that such markets in the past have shown an affinity towards precous metals, nor have they shown that such an inclination will be present in the future. The argument would be supported greatly if the author would provide concrete examples of such a trend having existed in the past and continuing into the future.
Finally, the argument takes for granted the fact that the large emerging markets will continue to grow without any hinderance. No evidence has been cited in favor of such a bold assumption. For example, Although China and India are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, both the countries are also facing an everincreasing political and security turmoil. The argument fails to consider such factors that could have a drastic impact on the economic growth of such countries and in turn affect their assumption. The author must mention factors affecting the economic growth of such growing economies, if he wishes to put forth a sound and solid argument.
The above argument makes many bold assumptions with some weak evidence to draw up a conclusion that is not completely sound. Should author consider the factors mentioned above and incorporate them in his hypothesis, he would make a much more compelling argument .
[highlight]That was the Analysis of an argument...and following is the /analysis of an issue. If you have read upto this point and only want to leave input on the above passage, that is also fine. Please help me out, Should I be using the templates out there or is writing like this enough?[/highlight]
ANALYSIS OF AN ISSUE
"Children today have an unprecedented number of options when it comes to entertainment. Since no parent can be aware of all of these options, it falls to the entertainment media to ensure that their content is suitable for young consumers."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The issue states that since the parents of children cannot monitor all the entertainment options that children have access to, the entertainment media must self regulate its own content for the sake of the children. Such an issue does have valid arguments on both sides, for example, the parent's claim valid considering the vast number of media entertainment options available to children, it would be very difficult for parents to monitor the children at all times. Having said that, it is also true that the entertainment industry can't self regulate all their activities considering that children are only a small segment of their target audience. Inspite of such compelling arguments on both sides, I find myself completely against the opinion stated above and believe that the entertainment media, while it should be socially responsible, does not have any obligation at all towards ensuring that all their content be suitable for children. I also feel that such a stand taken by parents could have negative effects on long term well being of their children.
The primary reason for my stand is that, the media entertainment industry caters to a large variety of viewer demographic and the "child age-group" is just one of the demographics. Should the author ask for self-regulation in media content that are primarily meant for children, I would support the stand but asking the media to regulate all its contents for the sake of children is not feasible. The media industry ,for its part, can provide statutory warnings regarding the content being displayed. The responsibility must lie with the parents to take note of such warnings and implement them at home. It would be grossly unfair to ask the media to regulate all its content for a single demographic.
Moreover, asking the entertainment media to self-regulate instead of the parents talking with their children about such content, could backfire and have a negative effect on the children. The parents must actively communicate and counsel their children on the negative aspects that are displayed in adult television themes. This would ensure that children, when eventually exposed to such content, have a mature reaction to it as opposed to a person, who grew up in a protected environment. Such a person is likely to have an immature reaction to the questionable content because he has never been exposed to such content before and also has never been told why the content is said to be wrong.
Finally, parents asking the entertainment industry to self-regulate seems like an lethargic approach towards parenting. Parents should maintain a balance between regulation of content for their children and educating their children about the reasons behind such regulations. Such an approach would be beneficial to them both in the short term, when they don't have to spend excessive energy on regulations and in the long term, when they can be assured that their child will be a better and more mature member of the society once the child grows up. In addition, it solves the problem of parents being unable to monitor all the entertainment options as children themselves would,partly, be able to make mature decisions if the content is good or bad.
In conclusion,the opinion mentioned above does have its benefits, these benefits while providing short term comfort for the parents could do unintended long term damage to their children. Moreover, asking a third party to regulate itself because you are unable to control your circumstances is unfair. Given such a situation, I find myself in complete disagreement with the opinion stated above.
Thanks in advance! I would be greatly in your debt.