Test in 1 week - just did my first AWA. I'd really appreciate feedback
[#permalink]
19 Jun 2015, 06:15
Hi All,
I just took GMATPrep2, and was wondering if someone might be able to rate my essay? I ended up typing for pretty much the whole 30 minutes - I should probably have spent some time structuring it at the start. But anyway, here it is:
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles.
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
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.
Response:
The argument states that people today, compared with a decade ago, are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. As evidence of this statement, the argument cites the fact that Heart's Delight sells a wide variety of cheeses, and the fact that the Good Earth Cafe is less financially successful than the newly opened House of Beef. However, in linking these to the statement that people are not concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, the argument makes several unfounded assumptions and leaps of faith. As a consequence, it is not a particularly convincing argument.
Firstly, the fact that the Good Earth Cafe owners make only a modest living, compared with the owners of the nearby House of Beef, is not an indication of people's lack of concern for eating red meat. While it is a step in the right direction to compare restaurants that are in physical close proximity (thus reducing the effect of extraneous factors such as accessibility), there could be a multitude of other reasons for why the owners of Good Earth cafe earn less. In fact, it is quite possible that the Good Earth cafe is much more popular with customers and actually has far higher sales - but is inefficiently run, and incurs disproportionately higher costs. Consequently, it might be much less profitable than the House of Beef (even though the House of Beef may have lower sales), and therefore the owners may earn less. Therefore, it could well be the case that people are indeed concerned with their intake of red meat, but the argument makes an unfounded assumption that the poor profitability of the Good Earth cafe is linked to people's eating preferences. The argument would have more legs to stand on if, for instance, it could be shown that the House of Beef had many more customers. However, even so, the argument would have to account for many other differences between the two restaurants that could impact attendance and which may affect where people choose to eat (e.g., quality of the meals).
The argument also makes the leap of faith that, because Heart's Delight sells a wide selection of cheeses, people are not concerned with their intake of cheese. However, it is also mentioned that Heart's Delight sells organic fruit, vegetables and whole grain flour; a fact which is not considered in depth by the argument. Just because Heart's Delight stocks these cheeses does not necessarily mean they sell well. It could be that sales of these cheeses are extremely low in comparison with the other foods that are stocked, and people's preference is not for fatty cheeses. In order to be more credible, the argument would need to demonstrate that sales of these fatty cheeses have risen - and in fact risen at a faster pace than the other items sold. However, without this evidence, the argument presupposes rather too much about sales patterns within the store.
Finally, the argument, in its generalisation that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. The only evidence provided to support this assertion are a couple of examples regarding Heart's Delight and the comparison between Good Earth Cafe and the House of Beef. These are isolated examples and - even if true - would not be sufficiently strong evidence for the argument to make the sweeping generalisations that it does. In order to objectively make this type of statement, the argument would have to provide statistics based on a much larger sample size, comparing a wide range of people's eating habits today to ten years ago.
In summary, the argument is flawed for several aforementioned reasons - including unfounded assumptions and leaps of faith, as well as overuse of anecdotal evidence. It could be strengthened considerably if the author mentioned all the relevant facts and evidence underlying these assumptions. However, without this, it comes across as subjective, unconvincing, and open to debate.
Thanks a lot!