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
14 Oct 2015, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
"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 Cafe, 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 claims that the concern about the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has substantially decreased over the decade amongst people. It does by illustrating weak facts about the present day scenario. Stated this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to mention the key factors on the basis of which the argument can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no certain evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and contains several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people were concerned about the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago. This statement is a stretch as the argument fails to provide the present day data regarding percentage of population consuming such products. Also, no statistical data or evidence is provided about the decade ago consumption of red meat and cheeses. Hence, there is no ground on which the comparison can be made. For example, the argument states that by visiting Heart's Delight store, which also sells organic products, one can find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content but fails to provide information about the actual population buying the cheeses from the shop. Clearly, this is a weak link and thus cannot support the conclusion made. The argument could have been better evaluated if it explicitly stated the data regarding the decade ago consumption and today’s consumption of red meat and cheeses.
Second, the argument claims the owners of Good Earth’s Café are making a moderate living whereas the owners of House of beef are billionaires. On the basis of this claim, the author concludes that the concern about the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has substantially decreased over the decade among people. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the business model of both restaurants. Is Good Earth’s Café’s pricing model the same as House of Beef’s pricing model? Are all the Beef serving restaurants doing well or is it just House of Beef? As there are no facts provided to this regards, it is very difficult to evaluate the argument precisely. If answer to these questions were provided, the argument would have been much more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and would have been lot more convincing if additional relevant facts were provided by the author. In order to assess a situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without such knowledge, the argument remains open to debate.
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 claims that the concern about the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has substantially decreased over the decade amongst people. It does by illustrating weak facts about the present day scenario. Stated this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to mention the key factors on the basis of which the argument can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no certain evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and contains several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people were concerned about the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago. This statement is a stretch as the argument fails to provide the present day data regarding percentage of population consuming such products. Also, no statistical data or evidence is provided about the decade ago consumption of red meat and cheeses. Hence, there is no ground on which the comparison can be made. For example, the argument states that by visiting Heart's Delight store, which also sells organic products, one can find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content but fails to provide information about the actual population buying the cheeses from the shop. Clearly, this is a weak link and thus cannot support the conclusion made. The argument could have been better evaluated if it explicitly stated the data regarding the decade ago consumption and today’s consumption of red meat and cheeses.
Second, the argument claims the owners of Good Earth’s Café are making a moderate living whereas the owners of House of beef are billionaires. On the basis of this claim, the author concludes that the concern about the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has substantially decreased over the decade among people. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the business model of both restaurants. Is Good Earth’s Café’s pricing model the same as House of Beef’s pricing model? Are all the Beef serving restaurants doing well or is it just House of Beef? As there are no facts provided to this regards, it is very difficult to evaluate the argument precisely. If answer to these questions were provided, the argument would have been much more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and would have been lot more convincing if additional relevant facts were provided by the author. In order to assess a situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without such knowledge, the argument remains open to debate.
15 Oct 2015, 03:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
harshitaangarey
Congratulations harshita! This is one strong essay, in my opinion. Just note a few corrections I made in red. You have some parallelism issues at the end of the second paragraph,
The argument could have been better evaluated if it explicitly stated the data regarding
and some agreement issues at the end of the third:
answers ... were provided
this ... regard
Also note some other minor idiomatic issues I have marked.
Did you time yourself when writing the essay? If so, did you have much time left? Given the high quality of your writing, I suspect you did not have time to proofread and I believe these are probably small issues that could be easily solved with some extra time for proofreading.
Congrats on the good work, I believe this should be very close to a 6.0 essay !
I hope I've been able to help!
Cheers!!!
15 Oct 2015, 08:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
paulaalv11
Thank you very much!
All thanks to Chineseburned!
I hope it works well tomorrow! Wish me luck
