Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medic

Hi Desperate123,

This gets a 4 out of 6. Structurally, you did very well in organizing your thoughts. And, your writing is good. However, your logic needs a little polish to hit the highest scores! Be very particular about declaring something the "most conspicuous" flaw, for starters. If the flaw you identified ISN'T the most conspicuous, you're in trouble--in fact, the '4' essay in the Official Guide gets specifically called out on this. Here, causal issues about the number of pills sold (Why were they prescribed more? How much were they advertised, how long were they on the market, what side effects do they have, etc.) and representativeness issues (how much milder are each of the two medicines? How much does a reduced dose negatively impact the effect of each medicine?) are much more "conspicuous" than the valid, but less central, assumptions about nonprescription competitors. And, your 4th paragraph almost hit the most important flaw--that "best-selling" is not "best!"--but ended up getting distracted by other medicine, and important but secondary concern.

Make sure you prioritize assumptions. Which assumptions hinge on which other assumptions, which are easily proved and which are completely unfounded? Explore the most important flaws first, and in more detail, to improve your scores!

Regards,

Thank you soo much for the review.. I will keep these points in mind and start writing few more essays.. One question.. Do i have to give examples for each assumption ??

yes, this is a must! Every assumption needs examples of who it could be proven true or false--though they don't need to be real world examples, hypotheticals and what-ifs are fine too!

Can someone please review the essay and rate it on a scale of 6.
Thanks in advance.


The argument that people should choose Acid-Ease over Peptiacid for effective but milder non-prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid omits few important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid does not alone constitute a logical support to the argument and certainly does not provide any proof to validate the argument.

First, the argument assumes that more the prescription of a drug, more the effectiveness of it. Here, the argument fails to provide any statistical evidence proving that prescription of any drug is only on account of the drug's effectiveness.The argument fails to consider a point that the 76 million prescriptions could be because of repetition of the prescriptions to the same patient rather to different patients. For example - there can be only 7.6 million different patients and each patient would have been prescribed the same drug 10 times, making the number to 76 million and at the same time the other drug i.e Peptiacid would have been subscribed to high number of individual patients and it is highly likely that Peptiacid is more popular.
Second, in a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument fails to consider the representation of the sample selected.For Example - if the drug prescribed is more available in a particular region and because of its availability the doctors could prescribe it rather because of the drug's effectiveness. Here, the argument mis-represents the comparison without providing any facts related to the supply and demand of the drug. The author also wrongly compares prescribed drugs to non-prescribed medication- on one side it stated that Doctors have prescribed Acid-ease more than they did for Peptiacid and the other side it suggests to choose Acid-Ease for non-prescription medication, this statement is flawed by itself.
Finally, the argument fails to consider the cost of the medicine. In case, the Acid-ease is cheaper but less effective than Peptiacid and hence could be one of the reasons for the doctors to suggest the same then choosing the Acid-ease may not solve the actual problem as the prescription would have been made based on cost rather on the effectiveness to cure the illness.

Because the argument leaves out several key issues it is not sound or persuasive. If the argument had mentioned the list of items as discussed in above passages instead of relying solely on one data factor, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing. As it stands, the argument is flawed.

Hey, can someone please help in rating the essay.
Thanks !

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hey vijay527
I would probably give this essay around a 2.5 or a 3.
There are two main issues:
First - this won't be fun to hear, but the level of English isn't high enough. Some of the time this just makes the level lower, but some of the time it actually interferes with meaning. For example, you say that the argument "omits few important concerns", when actually you mean it omits a few important concerns - a small difference which gives a completely opposite meaning,
Second - the critiques you point out are not the central ones, and are not especially successful.
The first point, about individual patients versus repeat patients, is a weak one. First of all, it stands to reason that people who buy more medicine care more about what it is, and thus it is not convincing to say they must be counted the same way as single-time buyers. But more to the point - you have no evidence to even suggest this is the case, and thus this is purely speculative.

The second critique, about different regions, is also a poor way to attack the argument - so what if it's popularity is spread out in different places? Unless you have reason to believe that what is relevant to the health of people in one are is not relevant to those in another (and you don't), this doesn't help your case at all. And again, this is complete speculation.

It seems to me you are focused on arguing with the facts given (which we shouldn't do - facts are facts) and not with the logical conclusion drawn from it (which we absolutely should). The absolute most significant flaw in the argument, which you mention briefly at the end of the third paragraph - is that it's unclear you can infer anything about the non-prescription medication from data about the stronger, prescription version. This should not be at the end of a paragraph, but should have a paragraph of it's own.

The final point about cost is also not a good one - the argument is not about which is purely the best medicine, but which SHOULD be prescribed. Thus, cost is a totally legitimate factor to consider, and this is not a successful critique. It's crucial to focus on exactly the claim being made...

Hope this helps.

Hey DAVEexamPAL, Thanks for the Valuable feedback. It was indeed a wake up call for me.
I will work upon the content and the grammar in the next essays.
Thanks !

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

please review

The argument that people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease omits several key issues that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. The description that follows Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Peptic aid. This alone does not logically constitute in favor of the argument. It certainly does not provide support or proof to complete the argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not mention the chemical and physical difference between Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, Acid-Ease and Pepticaid. First,the argument assumes that no of prescription written by the doctor make the medication effective. In a weak attempt to support the claim it mentions more prescriptions were written for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid.
Second the argument assumes that full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, Acid-Ease and Pepticaid can be given to So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid.
Finally the argument generalize the use of full-strength prescription medication and does not consider the patient case history and other factors for providing patient specific the medication.
Also the argument does not consider the other for of treatment such as Ayurvedic ,Unani and homeopathic before stating that people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.
Because the argument does not mentions several key points , it is not sound or persuasive. If the argument have consider the items stated above, it would have been more persuasive and thorough

Hello everyone, can any of you grade my essay? Thanks!

-----------------
The author recommends to buy Acid-Ease, instead of Pepticaid, for the relief of excess stomach acid. The author's recommendation is based on the information that doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. However, the author's argument suffers several flaws, ranging from gratuitous assumption to tenuous implication, which collectively make the argument not compelling.

First of all, the author unfairly infers that full-strength Acid-Ease is better than full-strength Pepticaid, because the former medicine is used more by the doctors. However, this implication is not based on a solid ground. The author neither provides any comparison information between the two medicines, such as their effectiveness and side effects, nor considers other possible explanation of the number of prescriptions by the doctor. It is entirely possible that Acid-Ease is not an effective medicine for the treatment of excess stomach acid, and hence doctors need to use a larger amount of Acid-Ease than Pepticaid. It is also possible that Acid-Ease is so cheap that it is the preferred medicine by the doctor, while Pepticaid is a premium medicine at a high cost. Without provide more information about the two medicines, the author's inference is not valid.

Furthermore, even we assume that full-strength Acid-Ease is a better medicine than Petticaid, the author's argument relies gratuitous on the assumption that the milder nonprescription forms of Acid-Ease and Peticaid will perform similarly as their full strength forms. The author fails to consider that there is no guarantee that milder Acid-Ease will perform better than milder Petticaid, no matter how well their full strength forms work. What if the milder versions of the medicine use different receipts as their full strength forms? Could the two medicines be equally effective? This assumption is open to doubt unless the author can provide more evidence.

Last but not the least, the author limits the options to only Acid-Ease and Pepticaid when patients want to buy milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid. The fact that Acid-Ease and Pepticaid are two of the best-selling brands does not guarantee that their milder forms are better than other alternatives. The author shall still benchmark the performance of nonprescription from of Acid-Ease and Pepticaid against other alternatives.

To sum up, the argument is undermined by the flaws identified above. If the author could be more informative about the effect of nonprescription forms of Acid-Ease, Pepticaid, and other alternatives, the argument would have been more convincing.

Good Luck

The following appeared in an article in a consumer-products magazine:
“Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, AcidEase and Pepticaid, are now available in milder nonprescription forms. Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.


Argument opines that people who need an effective but milder non-prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease over Pepticiaid. In order to bolster its claim, argument states that doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Peptiacid. However, because of numerous reasons as discussed in subsequent paragraphs, the evidence cited offers dubious support for argument's conclusion.

First, argument does not consider offerings of other best-selling brands of full-strength prescription for the relief of excess stomach acid. What if they are also offering non-prescription medication and their full-strength prescription medications are prescribed far more times than Acid-Ease is. In such scenario, by the logic of the argument, these medications will be more effective than Acid-Ease for people who need milder non-prescription medication and the conclusion of the argument no longer holds.

Second, argument assumes that the more prescriptions the medication have, the more effective the medication is, and does not provide any reason why doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full strength Acid-Ease than for Pepticaid. One reason could be that full-strength Acid-Ease is milder than full strength Pepticaid, and thus can be prescribed to patients suffering from common illnesses. On the other hand, being a stronger drug, Pepticaid may only be offered to patients with very serious ailments. Because number of people suffering from common illnesses is much larger than number of people suffering from very serious ailments, more prescriptions were written for Acid-Ease, even though Pepticaid is more effective than Acid-Ease. Since the assumption of the argument is not valid, argument's conclusion is merely an overstatement.

Third, argument fails to compare effectiveness of Acid-Ease and Pepticaid with existing best-selling brands of milder non-prescription medications which are already famous among people whereas Acid-Ease and Pepticaid are relatively new. Further, in case of non-prescription medication, people generally do not switch so easily to a newer drug because of the potential side-effect it may cause. Consequently, people may not actually choose medication offered by both Acid-Ease and Pepticaid for the relief of excess stomach acid over the existing best-selling brands. Argument draws untenably strong conclusion from incomplete information.

In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Further, argument fails to convey any compelling reason for people who need of effective medication for relief of excess stomach acid to choose Acid-Ease over Pepticaid.

Good Luck

Hello, everyone!

Would anyone be available to grade my essay and provide feedback? Sajjad1994, would you mind reviewing my essay on your GMAT AWA auto-grader? By the way, is there any way I can have access to a free auto-grader?

I read some of the articles recommended on this forum, but this is my very first attempt!

Thanks in advance!

____________

In an article from a consumer-products magazine, it was argued that people who need milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should opt for Acid-Ease rather than Pepticaid since Acid-Ease’s full-strength prescription had 76 million more medical prescriptions than Pepticaid’s. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is substantially flawed and unconvincing.

First of all, the argument readily assumes that full-strength Acid-Ease is better than full-strength Pepticaid because the former was prescribed more often by doctors. However, this statement is a stretch, as the number of times more a given drug is prescribed to detriment of another does not necessarily translate into the former being better than the latter. To argue this, the argument should have drawn a clear comparison between the effectiveness and potential side effects of each drug, for example. Furthermore, the argument fails to consider other explanations for the discrepancy in the number of prescriptions. It is plausible that full-strength Acid-Ease is not an effective medicine for the treatment of excess stomach acid and needs to be used in higher dosage. It could also be that it is cheaper in contrast to Pepticaid, which might make it the preferred drug by doctors. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that full-strength Acid Ease was better than full-strength Pepticaid because of one of the aforementioned reasons and not simply because it was prescribed more.

Secondly, the argument considers that, given that the full-strength form of Acid-Ease is better than the equivalent Pepticaid, the milder nonprescription form of Acid-Ease will be more effective than that of Pepticaid. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide any correlation between the effectiveness of milder and full-strength forms of both drugs. The argument failed to provide any guarantee that milder Acid-Ease will perform better than milder Pepticaid, despite how well their full-strength forms work. What if the milder forms of both drugs have different concentrations of the active principle? Would they be equally effective? If the argument had provided evidence that the milder form of Acid-Ease was more effective than that of Pepticaid then it would have been significantly more convincing.

Finally, the argument restricts alternatives to consumers looking for milder nonprescription medication to Pepticaid and Acid-Ease. The fact that these are two of the best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid does not provide any guarantee that it will be the same for milder options. The argument should have provided evidence about the performance of these brands’ milder options against equivalents from other brands. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantiative evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about the nonprescription forms of Acid-Ease, Pepticaid, and other alternatives. To assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Sajjad1994 thank you very much!