|
|
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.
21 Oct 2022, 09:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Could someone please grade this essay as my AWA attempt?
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the soundtrack."
-----------------------------------------------
Essay -
The argument states that consumers prefer Motorcycle X over its foreign copy because Motorcycle X makes an exceptionally loud noise. The author also draws parallels between the higher sales of foreign cars in America compared to American cars since foreign cars are quieter. The argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument has structural flaws and it is weak.
Firstly, the argument is based on the fact that some people claim that the foreign product lacks the exceptionally loud noise that motorcycle X makes. The author does not provide details of who is making these claims. For example, perhaps a couple of friends of the author made these claims and they are now being considered as evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The author goes as far as to say that the loud noise is not marketed in the advertisements and hence may not be the reason for the consumers’ preferences. These claims remain unverified and it would be a stretch to assume that this is the only reason the foreign motorcycles not selling well in America. If the argument stated how many people prefer Motorcycle X because of its loud sound or how the data was collected to justify this claim, it would have strengthened the argument.
Secondly, the author does not consider the other reasons why consumers may possibly prefer the Motorcycle X over its foreign counterfeit. For example, Motorcycle X is durable and has sleek lines as portrayed by the advertisement. It could be possible that the foreign copy is not durable or that its parts are not of the same quality as Motorcycle X. The above-mentioned possibilities make the argument weak and clearly call out the logical deficiencies of the argument. If the argument had provided more details that could help one draw inferences about the similarities between Motorcycle X and its foreign counterfeit, we could identify why consumers prefer one bike over the other.
Moreover, the argument does not acknowledge that Motorcycle X has been manufactured in America for 70 years. The manufacturers of Motorcycle X have likely garnered goodwill and recognition in America. The author does not mention for what time period the sales of the foreign motorbike are compared with Motorcycle X. If the argument elaborated on the time period for which the foreign counterpart has been selling in America, we could have drawn inferences. For example, if it has been for sale in the country for 1 year only, it’s probably too short a time frame for it to capture a considerable market share. However, if the observation period was approximately 10 years, for instance, then we could appropriately conclude that the foreign company has failed to attract customers of Company X.
Finally, it would be helpful to understand from the author some details on the basis of which the argument has been made. For example, how many years has the foreign company been selling its motorbike in America? Comparable to Motorcycle X, how many lesser bikes has the foreign company sold? Who are the people that mentioned the loud noise made by motorcycle X being its differentiator and how many of these people have claimed this? It would also be of help if the author would elucidate what the fundamental differences are between Motorcycle X and its copy.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author would have clearly mentioned all the facts.
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the soundtrack."
-----------------------------------------------
Essay -
The argument states that consumers prefer Motorcycle X over its foreign copy because Motorcycle X makes an exceptionally loud noise. The author also draws parallels between the higher sales of foreign cars in America compared to American cars since foreign cars are quieter. The argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument has structural flaws and it is weak.
Firstly, the argument is based on the fact that some people claim that the foreign product lacks the exceptionally loud noise that motorcycle X makes. The author does not provide details of who is making these claims. For example, perhaps a couple of friends of the author made these claims and they are now being considered as evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The author goes as far as to say that the loud noise is not marketed in the advertisements and hence may not be the reason for the consumers’ preferences. These claims remain unverified and it would be a stretch to assume that this is the only reason the foreign motorcycles not selling well in America. If the argument stated how many people prefer Motorcycle X because of its loud sound or how the data was collected to justify this claim, it would have strengthened the argument.
Secondly, the author does not consider the other reasons why consumers may possibly prefer the Motorcycle X over its foreign counterfeit. For example, Motorcycle X is durable and has sleek lines as portrayed by the advertisement. It could be possible that the foreign copy is not durable or that its parts are not of the same quality as Motorcycle X. The above-mentioned possibilities make the argument weak and clearly call out the logical deficiencies of the argument. If the argument had provided more details that could help one draw inferences about the similarities between Motorcycle X and its foreign counterfeit, we could identify why consumers prefer one bike over the other.
Moreover, the argument does not acknowledge that Motorcycle X has been manufactured in America for 70 years. The manufacturers of Motorcycle X have likely garnered goodwill and recognition in America. The author does not mention for what time period the sales of the foreign motorbike are compared with Motorcycle X. If the argument elaborated on the time period for which the foreign counterpart has been selling in America, we could have drawn inferences. For example, if it has been for sale in the country for 1 year only, it’s probably too short a time frame for it to capture a considerable market share. However, if the observation period was approximately 10 years, for instance, then we could appropriately conclude that the foreign company has failed to attract customers of Company X.
Finally, it would be helpful to understand from the author some details on the basis of which the argument has been made. For example, how many years has the foreign company been selling its motorbike in America? Comparable to Motorcycle X, how many lesser bikes has the foreign company sold? Who are the people that mentioned the loud noise made by motorcycle X being its differentiator and how many of these people have claimed this? It would also be of help if the author would elucidate what the fundamental differences are between Motorcycle X and its copy.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author would have clearly mentioned all the facts.
Moderators:
188 posts
