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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
03 Jan 2021, 15:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Topic:
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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”
My Response:
An excerpt from a magazine article on trends and lifestyles notes how, over the last decade, people have grown less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, citing an array of anecdotal evidence. Namely, the article notes how Heart's Delight, a healthier restaurant, is now offering a selection of fatty cheeses, and how House of Beef is thriving, while Good Earth Cafe is just making a modest profit. Though the author is well-intentioned and attempts to support their argument with relevant evidence, I believe that their argument is insufficient and incomplete.
The author's piece relies on isolated arguments and sweeping generalizations, both of which make the argument flawed. Heart's Delight recent offering of a "wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content" is not necessarily indicative of broader industry trends or habits of other organic stores. Likewise, the author's anecdotal observation that House of Beef's owners are millionaires -- while the owners of the Good Earth Cafe are just making a modest living -- not only does not appear to be rooted in fact, but also carries little relevance in explaining people's concern about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. While both of these examples might be true, they do little in explaining what is happening on a broader scale and act as sweeping generalizations.
On a similar note, the author makes a number of connections that are not logically sound. Heart's Delight broader offering of fatty cheeses could be a result of the store attempting to become a more complete one-stop-shop retailer; its carrying, or lack of carrying, of fatty cheeses has little explanatory value in this situation. A counterexample of this can be seen with Whole Foods, which is a national supermarket chain that focuses on offering organic and healthier alternatives. Though Whole Foods has increasingly only offered healthy and natural options, the American public has arguably moved in the opposite direction, as obesity figures have hit record highs; Whole Foods' offering of healthy options has not made the American more concerned about regulating their intake of fatty foods, and I do not believe that it would be unrealistic to say that the opposite is not true either. A similar argument can be made with House of Beef, as the restaurant's recent success could be attributed to people cooking vegetarian foods at home, and instead opting to eat unhealthier foods when dining out.
Lastly, the author fails to consider other factors in their analysis and does not include a baseline for comparison. As mentioned in the paragraph above, though lessening concern about regulating the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses could be the reason why Heart's Delight decide to offer a wide selection of fatty cheeses, there are plenty of other alternative explanations as well. Perhaps, due to declining cheese sales, a local cheese shop recently went out of business and Heart's Delight wanted to seize their market share; alternatively, Heart's Delight could have aspirations to become a more complete grocery store, and given that cheese is a popular food item, it would only make sense for them to carry it. Additionally, without a baseline to compare this decade to, our analysis is incomplete. Only using the author's article, it is unclear whether this selection of cheese was added recently or whether House of Beef's success occurred over the past decade.
To conclude, the author's argument is insufficient and incomplete, as it depends on logical flaws, faulty assumptions, and sweeping generalizations. Though people might be less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than a decade ago, the author's argument on why this is the case is unconvincing and poorly reasoned. The argument can be significantly strengthened via the inclusion of data on how people's diets have changed over the past decade, nationwide (instead of localized) evidence, and additional evidence that considers other factors and does not fall victim to the deficiencies described above.
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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”
My Response:
An excerpt from a magazine article on trends and lifestyles notes how, over the last decade, people have grown less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, citing an array of anecdotal evidence. Namely, the article notes how Heart's Delight, a healthier restaurant, is now offering a selection of fatty cheeses, and how House of Beef is thriving, while Good Earth Cafe is just making a modest profit. Though the author is well-intentioned and attempts to support their argument with relevant evidence, I believe that their argument is insufficient and incomplete.
The author's piece relies on isolated arguments and sweeping generalizations, both of which make the argument flawed. Heart's Delight recent offering of a "wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content" is not necessarily indicative of broader industry trends or habits of other organic stores. Likewise, the author's anecdotal observation that House of Beef's owners are millionaires -- while the owners of the Good Earth Cafe are just making a modest living -- not only does not appear to be rooted in fact, but also carries little relevance in explaining people's concern about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. While both of these examples might be true, they do little in explaining what is happening on a broader scale and act as sweeping generalizations.
On a similar note, the author makes a number of connections that are not logically sound. Heart's Delight broader offering of fatty cheeses could be a result of the store attempting to become a more complete one-stop-shop retailer; its carrying, or lack of carrying, of fatty cheeses has little explanatory value in this situation. A counterexample of this can be seen with Whole Foods, which is a national supermarket chain that focuses on offering organic and healthier alternatives. Though Whole Foods has increasingly only offered healthy and natural options, the American public has arguably moved in the opposite direction, as obesity figures have hit record highs; Whole Foods' offering of healthy options has not made the American more concerned about regulating their intake of fatty foods, and I do not believe that it would be unrealistic to say that the opposite is not true either. A similar argument can be made with House of Beef, as the restaurant's recent success could be attributed to people cooking vegetarian foods at home, and instead opting to eat unhealthier foods when dining out.
Lastly, the author fails to consider other factors in their analysis and does not include a baseline for comparison. As mentioned in the paragraph above, though lessening concern about regulating the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses could be the reason why Heart's Delight decide to offer a wide selection of fatty cheeses, there are plenty of other alternative explanations as well. Perhaps, due to declining cheese sales, a local cheese shop recently went out of business and Heart's Delight wanted to seize their market share; alternatively, Heart's Delight could have aspirations to become a more complete grocery store, and given that cheese is a popular food item, it would only make sense for them to carry it. Additionally, without a baseline to compare this decade to, our analysis is incomplete. Only using the author's article, it is unclear whether this selection of cheese was added recently or whether House of Beef's success occurred over the past decade.
To conclude, the author's argument is insufficient and incomplete, as it depends on logical flaws, faulty assumptions, and sweeping generalizations. Though people might be less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than a decade ago, the author's argument on why this is the case is unconvincing and poorly reasoned. The argument can be significantly strengthened via the inclusion of data on how people's diets have changed over the past decade, nationwide (instead of localized) evidence, and additional evidence that considers other factors and does not fall victim to the deficiencies described above.
XSatishX
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 17 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: LBS '24 (D) ISB '23 (II) Tepper '24 (S)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V41 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
Products:
04 Jan 2021, 00:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
req888
Your passage is good with the context but there are some improvements possible.
- Use words like firstly or first and second to list the assumptions you are attacking.
- An assumption, why it is flawed, and what can be done better all should be in a single paragraph.
- Don't bring two assumptions together and try to weaken them together as this will reduce your number of new
points available.
- Don't switch paragraphs while weakening an assumption, if you are listing flaws for the same. Keep it in the
same para.
- Also words like on a similar note, However, are connectors and avoid using this kind of words to open a
paragraph.
- I can see their referring to the author which is a number issue, Also the author's argument depends on logical
flaws, convey a different meaning. Do construct more meaningful sentences.
- Using () is not good in business communication and a proper connector is required.
- Do present some examples or state some beliefs as to why this assumption is flawed.
Overall your Passage is good with length but you need to work on how to connect things. Connectors are something really important and the use of words like however, Moreover, but, Also etc makes your passage complete and connected.
Your passage is good with the context but there are some improvements possible.
- Use words like firstly or first and second to list the assumptions you are attacking.
- An assumption, why it is flawed, and what can be done better all should be in a single paragraph.
- Don't bring two assumptions together and try to weaken them together as this will reduce your number of new
points available.
- Don't switch paragraphs while weakening an assumption, if you are listing flaws for the same. Keep it in the
same para.
- Also words like on a similar note, However, are connectors and avoid using this kind of words to open a
paragraph.
- I can see their referring to the author which is a number issue, Also the author's argument depends on logical
flaws, convey a different meaning. Do construct more meaningful sentences.
- Using () is not good in business communication and a proper connector is required.
- Do present some examples or state some beliefs as to why this assumption is flawed.
Overall your Passage is good with length but you need to work on how to connect things. Connectors are something really important and the use of words like however, Moreover, but, Also etc makes your passage complete and connected.
