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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
03 Mar 2017, 18:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello everybody! I am taking the GMAT tomorrow at 12:00. I wrote 2 essays tonight and I am looking at basic feedback in terms of structure and the argument I make. Feedback on 1 of the 2 essays would be very much appreciated. I spent the majority of my prep on Q and V and I am looking for an average score on the AWA. I understand that my spelling is at times faulty, but it is a little late to fix that 
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery stores in the Marston area:
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
The effectiveness of advertisement in newspapers is often debated, with some holding that it will directly help a company’s bottom line, and others arguing that newspaper ads have limited influence on spending habits of consumers. The newspaper concludes that an advertisement in it’s newspaper will directly lead to increased sales. Though there may well be some merit to his claim, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, that has questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot assume the argument to be valid.
The primary issue with the author’s claim lies in its unsubstantiated premises. To provide evidence of the correlation between advertisement in the paper and increased sales, the grocery store surveyed customers that purchased any of the advertised items. Even if the customers, did purchase the item and read the advertisement there is no evidence that supports the advertisement directly led to the purchase. Furthermore, the ad cites that, of the customers that did read the ad, half spent over $100. This alone, lacks conviction because the ad provides no information about the average spending of all customers of the grocery store. The author’s premises, the basis of the argument, lack substantial backing evidence and, thus, lead us to an invalid argument.
In addition, the ad makes several assumptions without providing grounds to solidify them. The argument assumes that the success of advertising for one grocery store will hold true for all grocery stores. The author offers no convicing evidence to prove that what works for one store will work for all. This assumption weakens the author’s argument and fails to show the basis for how advertisement that worked for one grocery store will for all grocery stores.
Though the ad does have issues in its questionable premises and assumptions, it is not to say that the ad has no validity. To improve the advertisement, the author should provide statistics backing the correlation between sales and advertisting. This could easily be done by asking those customers that read the ad if the reason they are shopping at the grocery store is directly tied to the advertisement. Furthermore, the assumption should explain why and how all advertising will benefit any single grocery store.
In sum, the ad proposes that advertising in the newspaper will lead to increased sales. However, unproven premises and shakey assumptions discredit the conclusion. The ad could increase it’s conclustion and effectiveness by providing concrete evidence proving the correlation of advertisting and sales.
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.”
In the 21st century there is much discussion about how manufacturing affects the environment. Some argue that the toxins of manufacturing are devastating to the environment and that the environment will be greatly be affected as a result, while some argue that the harm is minimal and unavoidable. The author of the editorial claims that mangers of manufacturing plants have little incentive to create processes that will limit harm done to environment and that the government should step in and create policies that will make manufactory plants more friendly to the environment. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents an illogical argument, that has questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue lies in the author’s unsubstantiated premises. The author flat out states that companies do not monitor the damage that their processes causes to the environment. It is difficult to believe that companies do not at least consider the affect their processes have on environment. Regardless to the degree of companies awareness, without further proof supporting company aloofness, this premise can not be held to be true. Secondly, the author states that the recommended steps the government should take will “guarantee” that manufacturers will limit the damage their processes cause on the environment. However, it can assumed that if the penalties are just a fraction of the total profits the manufactory produces, the financial penalties will not guarantee process improvement. The authors premises, the basis of the argument, lack sufficient evidence and cannot be taken as facts without further explanation.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that may or not be true. The argument states that the manufactures will be the one that monitor and report on how their processes affect the environment. If the company is the one doing the reporting, the company has reason to downplay the negative affects the processes have on the environment. Furthermore, the author assumes that the reason why manufacturers don’t improve processes is because they lack financial motivation. Without further support this has no grounds. What if companies simply don’t have the available technology to improve their processes. The author makes assumptions and does not show causation and the assumptions therefore weaken the argument.
In, sum the author claims that if the government intervenes, companies will be forced to better monitor and improve their processes. Although this may be true, the manner the author lays out his assumptions and premises lead to a faulty conclusion. With better evidence and more reasoned assumptions the author could improve his argument.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery stores in the Marston area:
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
The effectiveness of advertisement in newspapers is often debated, with some holding that it will directly help a company’s bottom line, and others arguing that newspaper ads have limited influence on spending habits of consumers. The newspaper concludes that an advertisement in it’s newspaper will directly lead to increased sales. Though there may well be some merit to his claim, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, that has questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot assume the argument to be valid.
The primary issue with the author’s claim lies in its unsubstantiated premises. To provide evidence of the correlation between advertisement in the paper and increased sales, the grocery store surveyed customers that purchased any of the advertised items. Even if the customers, did purchase the item and read the advertisement there is no evidence that supports the advertisement directly led to the purchase. Furthermore, the ad cites that, of the customers that did read the ad, half spent over $100. This alone, lacks conviction because the ad provides no information about the average spending of all customers of the grocery store. The author’s premises, the basis of the argument, lack substantial backing evidence and, thus, lead us to an invalid argument.
In addition, the ad makes several assumptions without providing grounds to solidify them. The argument assumes that the success of advertising for one grocery store will hold true for all grocery stores. The author offers no convicing evidence to prove that what works for one store will work for all. This assumption weakens the author’s argument and fails to show the basis for how advertisement that worked for one grocery store will for all grocery stores.
Though the ad does have issues in its questionable premises and assumptions, it is not to say that the ad has no validity. To improve the advertisement, the author should provide statistics backing the correlation between sales and advertisting. This could easily be done by asking those customers that read the ad if the reason they are shopping at the grocery store is directly tied to the advertisement. Furthermore, the assumption should explain why and how all advertising will benefit any single grocery store.
In sum, the ad proposes that advertising in the newspaper will lead to increased sales. However, unproven premises and shakey assumptions discredit the conclusion. The ad could increase it’s conclustion and effectiveness by providing concrete evidence proving the correlation of advertisting and sales.
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.”
In the 21st century there is much discussion about how manufacturing affects the environment. Some argue that the toxins of manufacturing are devastating to the environment and that the environment will be greatly be affected as a result, while some argue that the harm is minimal and unavoidable. The author of the editorial claims that mangers of manufacturing plants have little incentive to create processes that will limit harm done to environment and that the government should step in and create policies that will make manufactory plants more friendly to the environment. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents an illogical argument, that has questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue lies in the author’s unsubstantiated premises. The author flat out states that companies do not monitor the damage that their processes causes to the environment. It is difficult to believe that companies do not at least consider the affect their processes have on environment. Regardless to the degree of companies awareness, without further proof supporting company aloofness, this premise can not be held to be true. Secondly, the author states that the recommended steps the government should take will “guarantee” that manufacturers will limit the damage their processes cause on the environment. However, it can assumed that if the penalties are just a fraction of the total profits the manufactory produces, the financial penalties will not guarantee process improvement. The authors premises, the basis of the argument, lack sufficient evidence and cannot be taken as facts without further explanation.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that may or not be true. The argument states that the manufactures will be the one that monitor and report on how their processes affect the environment. If the company is the one doing the reporting, the company has reason to downplay the negative affects the processes have on the environment. Furthermore, the author assumes that the reason why manufacturers don’t improve processes is because they lack financial motivation. Without further support this has no grounds. What if companies simply don’t have the available technology to improve their processes. The author makes assumptions and does not show causation and the assumptions therefore weaken the argument.
In, sum the author claims that if the government intervenes, companies will be forced to better monitor and improve their processes. Although this may be true, the manner the author lays out his assumptions and premises lead to a faulty conclusion. With better evidence and more reasoned assumptions the author could improve his argument.
Moderators:
188 posts
