EMPOWERgmatRichC
Hi Banach334,
With just 2 weeks of study time, you'll have to make some significant adjustments to how you handle the Verbal section (which means that you'll have to actively learn/practice some new Tactics). Given your needs and timeframe, I think that you'll find the EMPOWERgmat Verbal Score Booster to be quite helpful. Most of our clients finish that Study Plan in under a month, but even if you can't complete the full Study Plan, you'd likely benefit by working through the SC and RC Modules.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Hey,
thanks a lot i will check this tomorrow. I´ve just done one real GMAT Prep exam. My score is 710 and i am really happy right now :D Q49 and V37, IR 7. But Verbal and IR are bit flawed. there were two questions from
GMAT Club Tests... I really have to focus on verbal right now. What do you think about Q. should i continue to learn for it or focus on Verbal only?
I will post my AWA, maybe someone can give a rough score for it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation: The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles.
"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."
The argument claims that nowadays people are less aware of the extend of red meat and fatty cheeses they eat than people were ten years ago. This trend seems to be supported by the fact that shop owners of healthy food are less wealthy and offer also high butterfat content cheese, whereas owners of the restaurant House of Beef are affluent people. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that a shop which first selled healthy food in the 1960´s also offers cheese these days. This piece of evidence is not substantiated in any way. It is not said that each person is consuming more fatty cheese just because one shop varies his supplies. For example, a growth in population could necessity more supply of food in shops and supermarkets today. Furthermore, this fact indicates that consumers seem to buy a greater diversity of food in an organic shop. This can be taken as credit, that people try to focus on biological and organic food, which is considered healthier food than industrial made cheese. Therefore the argument would have been much clearer if if explicitily gave examples of how many kilograms of fatty cheese an average consumers buy nowadays compared to one decade ago. The sortiment of one single shop is not convincing to prove the change of a lifestyle or a new trend.
Second, the argument compares the wealth of the owners of an vegetarian restaurant and the owners of a new House of Beef restaurant, who are modest living people and millionaires, respectively. Admittedly, it could be possible that people would not open a new beef restaurant if they think there is no demand. But this is not for granted, because millionaires are obviously not dependent on the success of this business. Therefore they are maybe just interested and fascinated in owning this type of store. However, the argument fails because it does not provide evidence whether the owners of the different shops are wealthy or not because of their restaurants or different, independent financial activities. The author would strengthen his argument dramatically, if he gives information about the success of the business themselves, not about the owners in genereal. Additionally, some statistics about the number of consumers in each restaurant would strenthen the argument.
In conclusion, the arguemnt is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strenghtend if the author clearly mentionend all relevant facts, which are supported with empirical data. In order to assess the merits of a certain trend, is is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the information given are not sufficient to prove the author initally claim that people are not regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they did a decade ago. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
BW, Banach