|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
05 Oct 2013, 22:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi fellas, please rate my AWA 
The following is a letter from a professor at Xanadu College to the college's president.
"The development of an extensive computer-based long-distance learning program will enhance the reputation of Xanadu College. This program would allow more students to enroll in our courses, thereby increasing our income from student tuition. Traditional courses could easily be adapted for distance learners, as was shown by the adaptation of two traditional courses for our distance learning trial project last year. Also, by using computer programs and taped lectures, faculty will have fewer classroom obligations and more time to engage in extensive research, thereby enhancing the reputation of Xanadu."
The argument claims that, Xanadu College’s adaptation of its courses to online format will be beneficial for the college’s reputation and also bring in monetary gains. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unpersuasive and has several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that, long distance learning programmes are the only way of increasing the college’s reputation. This statement is a stretch. For example, there are other ways of improving the reputation of the college, such as, improving quality of faculty, participation with other colleges, socially and academically. Clearly the argument could establish LDPs as the only way of enhancing the reputation of the college. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that Xanadu has tried everything except venturing into LDPs and has seem failure, which leaves LDPs as the only avenue to increase their reputation.
Second, the argument states that induction of LDPs will increase the college’s revenue by increasing enrolment. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased enrolment and increased profitability. To illustrate, as LDPs will be a new venture for the college and will require initial expenditure, therefore there is no guarantee that LDP will be profitable from the word go. In fact the argument provides with no support for the profits and revenue promised by the author. If the argument had provided evidence that, LDP requires negligible expenditure on part of the college and the rest will be met by revenues from the tuition fee, it could have been much more convincing.
Third, the argument fails to account for answer to the question whether a sample of just two traditional courses is good enough to represent all the courses planned for LDP. Without resounding answers to such questions, one is left with the impression that the claims made by the argument are more of wishful thinking than backed by substantive evidence. Rather the argument goes out far to predict that the faculty can utilise the free time in researching, which would further benefit the reputation of the college. The argument fails to perceive a scenario where the faculty gets disinterested due to excessive free hours and loiters around instead of doing something productive.
In conclusion the argument is flawed, for the above mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened, if the author clearly mentions, relevant facts, such as, measures to ensure the success of the plan of implementing LDP including restrictions on the faculty to engage in research in free time and ensuring a full proof plan with facts and data to support the profitability of introducing LDPs to begin with. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantial and open to debate.
someone from Veritus ???
The following is a letter from a professor at Xanadu College to the college's president.
"The development of an extensive computer-based long-distance learning program will enhance the reputation of Xanadu College. This program would allow more students to enroll in our courses, thereby increasing our income from student tuition. Traditional courses could easily be adapted for distance learners, as was shown by the adaptation of two traditional courses for our distance learning trial project last year. Also, by using computer programs and taped lectures, faculty will have fewer classroom obligations and more time to engage in extensive research, thereby enhancing the reputation of Xanadu."
The argument claims that, Xanadu College’s adaptation of its courses to online format will be beneficial for the college’s reputation and also bring in monetary gains. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unpersuasive and has several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that, long distance learning programmes are the only way of increasing the college’s reputation. This statement is a stretch. For example, there are other ways of improving the reputation of the college, such as, improving quality of faculty, participation with other colleges, socially and academically. Clearly the argument could establish LDPs as the only way of enhancing the reputation of the college. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that Xanadu has tried everything except venturing into LDPs and has seem failure, which leaves LDPs as the only avenue to increase their reputation.
Second, the argument states that induction of LDPs will increase the college’s revenue by increasing enrolment. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased enrolment and increased profitability. To illustrate, as LDPs will be a new venture for the college and will require initial expenditure, therefore there is no guarantee that LDP will be profitable from the word go. In fact the argument provides with no support for the profits and revenue promised by the author. If the argument had provided evidence that, LDP requires negligible expenditure on part of the college and the rest will be met by revenues from the tuition fee, it could have been much more convincing.
Third, the argument fails to account for answer to the question whether a sample of just two traditional courses is good enough to represent all the courses planned for LDP. Without resounding answers to such questions, one is left with the impression that the claims made by the argument are more of wishful thinking than backed by substantive evidence. Rather the argument goes out far to predict that the faculty can utilise the free time in researching, which would further benefit the reputation of the college. The argument fails to perceive a scenario where the faculty gets disinterested due to excessive free hours and loiters around instead of doing something productive.
In conclusion the argument is flawed, for the above mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened, if the author clearly mentions, relevant facts, such as, measures to ensure the success of the plan of implementing LDP including restrictions on the faculty to engage in research in free time and ensuring a full proof plan with facts and data to support the profitability of introducing LDPs to begin with. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantial and open to debate.
someone from Veritus ???
Moderators:
188 posts
