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 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
30 Jan 2022, 10:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Can anyone review my AWA.
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
As part of promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette, argument opines that advertising the reduced price of selected products in the Daily Gazette should increase sales of grocery stores in the Marston area. The argument is substantially flawed because it draws broad conclusion from debatable evidences offering dubious support for its claim.
The argument refers to a study in which items from a downtown Marston's store were advertised, derives its conclusion from the results of this study and applies it to the rest of the stores in Marston. Argument unwarrantedly assumes that this one store in downtown under study is typical of all stores in Marston. However, the store under study, being located in downtown, is accessible to patrons from all over the town and thus, cannot be representative of a store in suburb which caters only to limited shoppers residing in that particular area. Considering varying conditions of different stores at Marston in terms of customer base, location and products offered, all stores may not be benefitted by advertising in the Daily Gazette. Had the argument limited its conclusion to the stores in downtown, it would still have made a convincing case.
Arguments asserts that, out of 200 consumers who purchased one or more of the 30 items advertised in the Daily Gazette ,130 have read the advertisement and more than half of these 130 shoppers have spent more than $100 at this store. The correlation between spending more than $100 and buying one or more of the advertised product does not imply causality. For instance, if average spending at this store is $100 per consumer, then these consumers have spent just the average amount which otherwise also they could have spent. Having provided inconclusive information, argument draws untenably strong conclusion that advertising in the Daily Gazette will help in increasing the sales. In order to substantiate its claim, argument could have compared the weekly or monthly sales at the store under study so as to determine the increase in sales caused by advertising in the Daily Gazette.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and fails to convey a compelling reasons for stores in Marston to advertise in the Daily Gazette.
Can anyone review my AWA.
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
As part of promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette, argument opines that advertising the reduced price of selected products in the Daily Gazette should increase sales of grocery stores in the Marston area. The argument is substantially flawed because it draws broad conclusion from debatable evidences offering dubious support for its claim.
The argument refers to a study in which items from a downtown Marston's store were advertised, derives its conclusion from the results of this study and applies it to the rest of the stores in Marston. Argument unwarrantedly assumes that this one store in downtown under study is typical of all stores in Marston. However, the store under study, being located in downtown, is accessible to patrons from all over the town and thus, cannot be representative of a store in suburb which caters only to limited shoppers residing in that particular area. Considering varying conditions of different stores at Marston in terms of customer base, location and products offered, all stores may not be benefitted by advertising in the Daily Gazette. Had the argument limited its conclusion to the stores in downtown, it would still have made a convincing case.
Arguments asserts that, out of 200 consumers who purchased one or more of the 30 items advertised in the Daily Gazette ,130 have read the advertisement and more than half of these 130 shoppers have spent more than $100 at this store. The correlation between spending more than $100 and buying one or more of the advertised product does not imply causality. For instance, if average spending at this store is $100 per consumer, then these consumers have spent just the average amount which otherwise also they could have spent. Having provided inconclusive information, argument draws untenably strong conclusion that advertising in the Daily Gazette will help in increasing the sales. In order to substantiate its claim, argument could have compared the weekly or monthly sales at the store under study so as to determine the increase in sales caused by advertising in the Daily Gazette.
In summary, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and fails to convey a compelling reasons for stores in Marston to advertise in the Daily Gazette.
01 Feb 2022, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is a well-written essay. My only critique is it would have been even stronger if a third flaw was identified. I usually identify three flaws in the argument and order them in terms of strength, starting with the biggest flaw.
In this argument, there is a second generalization flaw besides the one you already identified. Not all grocery items are price sensitive and hence will not benefit from the advertised price reduction. For example, advertising a reduced price of drain-opener won’t make people buy it if they don’t have a clogged drain at home. They are also unlikely to buy more drain-opener just because a reduced price was advertised.
In this argument, there is a second generalization flaw besides the one you already identified. Not all grocery items are price sensitive and hence will not benefit from the advertised price reduction. For example, advertising a reduced price of drain-opener won’t make people buy it if they don’t have a clogged drain at home. They are also unlikely to buy more drain-opener just because a reduced price was advertised.
29 Aug 2022, 23:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello,
Can someone please review my AWA?
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
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 counterexamples 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 concludes that people, in general, are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. To support this conclusion, argument illustrates two instances – about a store that has now started selling cheese, and about a non-vegetarian restaurant, whose owners are making millions. Stated in this way, argument presents facts in a distorted manner and fails to consider several factors, on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Thus, this argument is rather weak, unsupported and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses because one store started selling wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This statement is stretched and not substantiated in any way. Just because one single store started selling cheese, does not imply that people, in general, are not concerned about its consumption. Further, there is no evidence that people are actually buying cheese from that store. What if the store owner has recently started selling cheese to experiment if this can boost the store’s profit? The argument would have been clearer if it explicitly mentioned what percentage of people actually buy cheese from that store and are there a significant number of stores that have started selling cheese?
Second, the argument mentions that while the owners of an old vegetarian café are making a modest living, the owners of new House of Beef across the street are millionaires. It thus suggests that people are not regulating the intake of red meat. This is again a very weak statement and has several flaws as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between regulation of intake of red meat and the monetary status of restaurant owners. The argument assumes that since the owners of the new beef restaurant are millionaires, a large number of people would be visiting this place on a regular basis. But, what if the owners of the restaurant were millionaires even before they opened the restaurant? In this case we can’t say that it was the earnings by restaurant that made them millionaires. What if this restaurant is significantly high-priced and only elite class population comes here. In this case, we can’t comment on the general population as a whole. Thus, if the argument clearly mentioned the correlations, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that people, in general, are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how can we compare concerns of people today with those of a decade ago? What if there was limited availability of cheese and red meat a decade ago? What if the majority population that is having cheese and red meat was not even born a decade ago? Without having answers to the above questions, one is left with the opinions that the claim made by the argument is just a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could considerably be strengthened if it explicitly mentions the relevant facts. In order to assess a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
Can someone please review my AWA?
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
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 counterexamples 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 concludes that people, in general, are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. To support this conclusion, argument illustrates two instances – about a store that has now started selling cheese, and about a non-vegetarian restaurant, whose owners are making millions. Stated in this way, argument presents facts in a distorted manner and fails to consider several factors, on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Thus, this argument is rather weak, unsupported and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses because one store started selling wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This statement is stretched and not substantiated in any way. Just because one single store started selling cheese, does not imply that people, in general, are not concerned about its consumption. Further, there is no evidence that people are actually buying cheese from that store. What if the store owner has recently started selling cheese to experiment if this can boost the store’s profit? The argument would have been clearer if it explicitly mentioned what percentage of people actually buy cheese from that store and are there a significant number of stores that have started selling cheese?
Second, the argument mentions that while the owners of an old vegetarian café are making a modest living, the owners of new House of Beef across the street are millionaires. It thus suggests that people are not regulating the intake of red meat. This is again a very weak statement and has several flaws as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between regulation of intake of red meat and the monetary status of restaurant owners. The argument assumes that since the owners of the new beef restaurant are millionaires, a large number of people would be visiting this place on a regular basis. But, what if the owners of the restaurant were millionaires even before they opened the restaurant? In this case we can’t say that it was the earnings by restaurant that made them millionaires. What if this restaurant is significantly high-priced and only elite class population comes here. In this case, we can’t comment on the general population as a whole. Thus, if the argument clearly mentioned the correlations, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that people, in general, are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how can we compare concerns of people today with those of a decade ago? What if there was limited availability of cheese and red meat a decade ago? What if the majority population that is having cheese and red meat was not even born a decade ago? Without having answers to the above questions, one is left with the opinions that the claim made by the argument is just a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could considerably be strengthened if it explicitly mentions the relevant facts. In order to assess a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
