Hello guys,
I have to take my GMAT in weeks. I would be grateful if someone could provide me feedback on my essay.
The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm:
“Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker’s consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker’s consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee.”
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 counter examples 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.The argument claims that the investment and financial consulting firm should consider shifting its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee. The argument is based on the studies that suggest that coffee drinker's coffee consumption increases and that cola drinker's cola consumption decreases with age and on the premise that the adult population will significantly increase as the population ages. Stated this way, the argument provides a poor reasoning and fails to consider several key factors.
Firstly, the argument assumes that in the next 20 years less babies will be born than adults who will age. This assumption is too extreme as the author provides no evidence for this statement to be true. For example, if the adult population in 2020 is 1 million and the number of babies born in 2020 are 10 million, in the next 20 years the younger population will be much more than the adult population, in which case as per the argument, the cola consumption would be higher than coffee consumption. Also, the argument fails to consider the death rates in the adult and youth population. What if 30 percent of the adult population dies of heart attacks, which are rare in younger population? In this case, the adult population would decrease and might become less than youth population. Such statistics could make or break the argument and thus the argument is rendered unsubstantiated. The argument could have been much clearer if it provided the statistics of birth and death rates.
Secondly, the argument claims that increase in the consumption of coffee and decrease in the consumption of cola implies that coffee consumption is numerically greater the cola consumption. This is a misinterpretation of data as it is not necessary for this trend to be true. as the argument fails to consider the initial rates of coffee and cola consumption. What if the younger population's cola consumption is abnormally high? In this case, even if the consumption of cola were to decline, it is possible that the consumption is still greater than coffee consumption. Therefore, the argument draws a conclusion which may or may not be true. However, if the argument provided more data on the variance of the consumption rates of coffee and cola among the age groups, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument provides no investment related information for Cola Loca and Early bird Coffee. What if the investment the firm would need to do in Early Bird Coffee is significantly greater than the investment it currently does in Cola Loca? Without convincing answers to such questions, the claim is more of a leap of faith than substantiated argument.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be reasonably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. To assess whether the firm should transfer its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee, it is important to have full knowledge of all the key factors. In this case, because of lack of information about birth rates, death rates, initial consumption rates, and investment details, a decision cannot be made. Without such information, the argument remains unsupported and open to debate.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Saakhi