Hello all,
I have my GMAT scheduled for this Monday and really haven't spent any time on AWA other than writing the following essays on my most recent two practice exams. I'm hoping for a bit of feedback on each of them; namely, can I expect a 4.5+ on each of these? and for the second essay is it acceptable to introduce an acronym (SNSW) rather than saying Saluda Natural Spring Water each time?
Prompt #1:
“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.”
Essay #1:
The author of this magazine column asserts that in order to maximize their profits, the producers of the movie 3003 should pay Robin Good several million dollars to be the movie's star. While the author does use some evidence to support this claim, the conclusion is lacking some critical pieces of information. Specifically, the author needs to discuss if Robin Good was also paid "far more" than other actors in the financially successful movies and whether Robin Good is still in his prime.
The column mentions that, although Robin Good would be making "far more" than any other person involved with the movie, other very financially successful movies of the past have paid Robin a similar amount. However, this fails to take into consideration those previous films' budgets and cast. If everyone on the set is signing multi-million dollar deals then that's one thing, but if Robin is the only person with a multi-million dollar contract, then it could cause internal issues of envy, under-performance, etc. This could result in a lower-quality movie, worse reviews, and ultimately less profit. Likewise, if each of those "very financially successful movies" had a massive budget, then perhaps paying an actor several millions of dollars was warranted. However, without knowing 3003's budget relative to those other budgets, it's difficult to verify whether the same casting choice makes sense for 3003. If the budget for the movie 3003 is 1/10th the average budget of those previous movies, it may be substantially more difficult to justify getting a big-name actor.
Another key piece of information which we need to know is where in his career is Robin Good? If those financially successful movies of the past were filmed forty years ago when Robin was a stud in his twenties, then perhaps the high salary was justified. If he's now a seventy year old man who hasn't acted in a decade then it's going to be much more difficult to expect to have his being present generate significant revenue to justify the extra expense.
"The most likely way to maximize the profits of the movie 3003 is to pay Robin Good millions of dollars to star in it" is the conclusion laid out by the author of the entertainment magazine column. This conclusion, while it may have some merit, is lacking sufficient evidence to be deemed a well-founded claim. Two specific where the argument fails include not clearly expressing the cast and payrolls of the very financially successful movies referenced and not explicitly outlining Robin Good's current career status.
Prompt #2:
“Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.”
Essay #2:
The author of this magazine article asserts that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water rather than tap water is a wise investment in one's health, despite the seemingly high cost. While the author does provide some evidence to support this conclusion, overall the conclusion is not well-founded. One issue with this argument is in its failure to contrast the supposed health benefits of Saluda Natural Spring Water with tap water. A second issue is the inference that the lower rate of hospitalization (compared with the national average) is the direct result of drinking the Saluda Natural Spring Water, rather than a confounding variable.
The author's thesis is contingent upon the expensive Saluda Natural Spring Water being more health-promoting than tap water. However, the author fails to outline the specific differences between tap water and the Saluda Natural Spring Water. It is stated that the Saluda Natural Spring Water contains minerals necessary for good health and is free of bacteria. While each of these facts may seem to point towards Saluda Natural Spring Water being the superior choice for health, we need more information to confidently reach that conclusion. For example, does tap water also have the minerals necessary for good health? If it does, then the fact that Saluda Natural Spring Water has them as well is a moot point. Furthermore, the article in no way ties the lack of bacteria to positive health outcomes. It could very well be that tap water contains beneficial bacteria that actually serve to reduce liklihood of hospitalization.
A second issue with this magazine article is its inability to discern between correlation and causation. The fact that residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently does not necesitate that drinking the local water is the root cause of this effect. The author fails to mention whether the residents of Saluda even drink the expensive Natural Spring Water; it is very plausible that the spring is on private property and the residents have no better access than someone in a completely different state does to this water. The author also fails to discuss any potential confounding factors. For example, the average age of the residents of Saluda may be much lower than the national average. If this is the case, and if it is also true that younger populations tend to be hospitalized less frequently, then the lower hospitalization frequency could be the result of a factor other than the drinking of the Saluda Natural Spring Water.
The author makes the unfounded claim that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health. Although at first glance this argument does seem to have some merit, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to be persuasive. To make this article stronger the author needs to discuss the differences between Saluda Natural Spring Water and tap water and provide more evidence for the cause-and-effect relationship suggested between the drinking of Saluda Natural Spring Water and the decreased hospitalization rate experienced by the residents of Saluda.