Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 2008:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
What’s in it for you- Live Profile Evaluation Chat Session with Jenifer Turtschanow, CEO, ARINGO. Come with your details prepared and ARINGO will share insights! Pre-MBA Role/Industry, YOE, Exam Score, C/GPA, ECs Post-MBA Role/ Industry & School List.
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
10 Jun 2018, 15:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, I just started my GMAT prep and I began with IR and AWA. This is the first AWA essay I write and wish to receive some critiques and comments.
Can you please feel free to write any comments and score me if possible? Many thanks!
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, Acid- Ease 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.
The recommendation that people should choose nonprescribed Acid-Ease over Pepticaid, to relieve excess stomach acid in a milder and effective way made by the magazine may be convincing, however, further information is needed to determine the soundness of the argument. The claim is only backed up by one reason, ‘Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid’. The reason seems to be relevant, but it suffers from several flaws, including the unconvincing statistical inference, the post hoc fallacy and its misleading purpose of promotion.
The first key flaw is ‘76 million’, which suggests a robust statistical inference but lacks some clarifications to make it powerful. The pure number ‘76 million more’ doesn’t say too much. The excessive quantity may be caused by the time difference. If Acid-Ease had been available longer ago than Pepticaid, it makes sense to have much more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease. Furthermore, the growth rate of both drugs is not indicated. Suppose Pepticaid came out later, but the number of prescriptions for full-strength Pepticaid grows exponentially faster than for full-strength Pepticaid. What will happen? Pepticaid will exceed Acid-Ease one day. By then, the preference will be switched towards Pepticaid and the conclusion is the other way round. So the recommendation is not convincing as no clues mentioned above have been elucidated. Even if we assume both came out at the same time with the same growth rate, it may still have the second key flaw, the post hoc fallacy.
The second key flaw with this argument is the wrong analogy between the quantity and the effectiveness, which is described as post hoc fallacy, stating that since there are 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid, Acid-Ease must be more effective and milder in terms of relieving excess stomach acid. This is illogical. It could be possible that Acid-Ease is more cost-effective compared to Pepticaid, ceteris paribus, therefore the former one is preferred by patients. However, ceteris paribus is a very strong assumption which can be hardly achieved in reality. For example, Acid-Ease may be less effective than Pepticaid to release excess stomach acid in terms of both potency and efficacy. It’s the value for amount of money paid make Acid-Ease more prevalent. In this case, we can’t draw the conclusion that Acid-Ease should be chosen over Pepticaid as a milder and effective medication by wrongly admitting that more in quantity is equal to better in quality.
Finally, the third key flaw still exists even we relax the previous two. The article may be written for promotional purpose as it is posted in the consumer-products magazine. The author may intentionally present some information that is beneficial to Acid-Ease but disadvantageous to Pepticaid in order to increase the sales of Acid-Ease. The underlying drawbacks of Acid-Ease are failed to disclose and the readers can’t have an impartial view of the two products. Such promotion-oriented marketing strategy is used quite often to draw a misleading conclusion at the expense of consumers. The conclusion is obviously not trustworthy.
In summary, the recommendation to choose Acid-Ease is certainly unconvincing as it lacks a great deal of scientific information. To strengthen the argument, the article needs to offer more reliable updated academic research and verifiable empirical evidence to show the detailed comparison between the two drugs, the number of prescriptions at the same time, the availability, the price, the effectiveness, etc. Without that information provided, the recommendation sorely relies on assumptions and can’t be taken.
Can you please feel free to write any comments and score me if possible? Many thanks!
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, Acid- Ease 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.
The recommendation that people should choose nonprescribed Acid-Ease over Pepticaid, to relieve excess stomach acid in a milder and effective way made by the magazine may be convincing, however, further information is needed to determine the soundness of the argument. The claim is only backed up by one reason, ‘Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid’. The reason seems to be relevant, but it suffers from several flaws, including the unconvincing statistical inference, the post hoc fallacy and its misleading purpose of promotion.
The first key flaw is ‘76 million’, which suggests a robust statistical inference but lacks some clarifications to make it powerful. The pure number ‘76 million more’ doesn’t say too much. The excessive quantity may be caused by the time difference. If Acid-Ease had been available longer ago than Pepticaid, it makes sense to have much more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease. Furthermore, the growth rate of both drugs is not indicated. Suppose Pepticaid came out later, but the number of prescriptions for full-strength Pepticaid grows exponentially faster than for full-strength Pepticaid. What will happen? Pepticaid will exceed Acid-Ease one day. By then, the preference will be switched towards Pepticaid and the conclusion is the other way round. So the recommendation is not convincing as no clues mentioned above have been elucidated. Even if we assume both came out at the same time with the same growth rate, it may still have the second key flaw, the post hoc fallacy.
The second key flaw with this argument is the wrong analogy between the quantity and the effectiveness, which is described as post hoc fallacy, stating that since there are 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid, Acid-Ease must be more effective and milder in terms of relieving excess stomach acid. This is illogical. It could be possible that Acid-Ease is more cost-effective compared to Pepticaid, ceteris paribus, therefore the former one is preferred by patients. However, ceteris paribus is a very strong assumption which can be hardly achieved in reality. For example, Acid-Ease may be less effective than Pepticaid to release excess stomach acid in terms of both potency and efficacy. It’s the value for amount of money paid make Acid-Ease more prevalent. In this case, we can’t draw the conclusion that Acid-Ease should be chosen over Pepticaid as a milder and effective medication by wrongly admitting that more in quantity is equal to better in quality.
Finally, the third key flaw still exists even we relax the previous two. The article may be written for promotional purpose as it is posted in the consumer-products magazine. The author may intentionally present some information that is beneficial to Acid-Ease but disadvantageous to Pepticaid in order to increase the sales of Acid-Ease. The underlying drawbacks of Acid-Ease are failed to disclose and the readers can’t have an impartial view of the two products. Such promotion-oriented marketing strategy is used quite often to draw a misleading conclusion at the expense of consumers. The conclusion is obviously not trustworthy.
In summary, the recommendation to choose Acid-Ease is certainly unconvincing as it lacks a great deal of scientific information. To strengthen the argument, the article needs to offer more reliable updated academic research and verifiable empirical evidence to show the detailed comparison between the two drugs, the number of prescriptions at the same time, the availability, the price, the effectiveness, etc. Without that information provided, the recommendation sorely relies on assumptions and can’t be taken.
Moderators:
203 posts
