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 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.
24 Jul 2010, 13:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
The difficulty with many AWA Arguments is finding THREE separate/specific FLAWS to attack to reach the CRUCIAL THREE body paragraphs.
My strategy for every AWA Argument is to immediately break the argument up into individual sentences, then select three sentences to attack, and then attack each sentence in the three body paragraphs. It's straight forward and quick enough to do, especially when the flaws are obvious....but I've run into trouble on this one:
(taken from page one of the Official GMAT AWA Q's list, 2010)
So, I break-up the sentences individually to choose which I want to attack...the above Argument has only three sentences, so I don't even have to think about it and just plugged them in to my template (via chineseburned). On closer examination though, I can't come up with three individual flaws to attack.
Long story short, I can pick any two of the three but run out of "ammo" for whichever i've left for last unless I repeat the same points I've covered already in one an two (which we can't do). So, what am I missing?
How would you get three body paragraphs out of this? Furthermore, is my strategy/approach all wrong? Please share your own strategies and tips for finding three flaws for three body paragraphs.
My strategy for every AWA Argument is to immediately break the argument up into individual sentences, then select three sentences to attack, and then attack each sentence in the three body paragraphs. It's straight forward and quick enough to do, especially when the flaws are obvious....but I've run into trouble on this one:
(taken from page one of the Official GMAT AWA Q's list, 2010)
Quote:
So, I break-up the sentences individually to choose which I want to attack...the above Argument has only three sentences, so I don't even have to think about it and just plugged them in to my template (via chineseburned). On closer examination though, I can't come up with three individual flaws to attack.
Long story short, I can pick any two of the three but run out of "ammo" for whichever i've left for last unless I repeat the same points I've covered already in one an two (which we can't do). So, what am I missing?
How would you get three body paragraphs out of this? Furthermore, is my strategy/approach all wrong? Please share your own strategies and tips for finding three flaws for three body paragraphs.
Hussain15
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Last visit: 07 Jul 2021
Posts: 1,075
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 157
Status:The last round
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Stanford '14 (D) Booth '14 (D) Johnson '14 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
Schools: Stanford '14 (D) Booth '14 (D) Johnson '14 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
Posts: 1,075
Kudos:
3,541
24 Jul 2010, 14:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Your strategy looks fine to me. What I do is I write down 2 assumptions that the author would have taken & then hit those assumptions. In the 3rd paragraph, I take the conclusion & hit it.
Now in this case:
1. First assumption: company was more profitable when it had a single location so this was the only reason of profitability. Hit it now on this assumption.
2. Second assumption: The cost of shutting down all field offices & retaining one is not big enough to offset the company revenues. Hit it again. Market loss, customer base etc.
3. Conclusion: Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision. Hit it now by raising questions how can author be so sure without providing any supporting evidence. What if the market situation or product base is not so strong in the centralized office etc etc.
Summary: Argument is flawed & blah blah
Making sense?????
Now in this case:
1. First assumption: company was more profitable when it had a single location so this was the only reason of profitability. Hit it now on this assumption.
2. Second assumption: The cost of shutting down all field offices & retaining one is not big enough to offset the company revenues. Hit it again. Market loss, customer base etc.
3. Conclusion: Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision. Hit it now by raising questions how can author be so sure without providing any supporting evidence. What if the market situation or product base is not so strong in the centralized office etc etc.
Summary: Argument is flawed & blah blah
Making sense?????
24 Jul 2010, 15:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
I did what you did, too, almost:
For the first body paragraph I questioned the flawed assumption of the first sentence and attacked the correlation drawn between profitability and centralized location.
In body paragraph two, I attacked the second sentence and its flawed assumption: that centralizing necessarily equals saving money.
And then in the third body paragraph I attacked the third sentence, and this is where I get tied up because, usually, I attack the conclusion in the third body paragraph but if you notice here the second sentence is actually the conclusion; “Therefore, Apogee should...” If I ignore that fact and continue on after deciding the third sentence is more or less a continuation of the conclusion.... I still come up with only recycled arguments from both one and two. ...because it's using the same assumptions.
And actually, I see now one and two are also very similar. Still really twisted around on this one...
For the first body paragraph I questioned the flawed assumption of the first sentence and attacked the correlation drawn between profitability and centralized location.
In body paragraph two, I attacked the second sentence and its flawed assumption: that centralizing necessarily equals saving money.
And then in the third body paragraph I attacked the third sentence, and this is where I get tied up because, usually, I attack the conclusion in the third body paragraph but if you notice here the second sentence is actually the conclusion; “Therefore, Apogee should...” If I ignore that fact and continue on after deciding the third sentence is more or less a continuation of the conclusion.... I still come up with only recycled arguments from both one and two. ...because it's using the same assumptions.
And actually, I see now one and two are also very similar. Still really twisted around on this one...
