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
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.
09 Jun 2025, 05:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey everyone, I couldn't find a specific category so just posted it in general. I just did my HBS interview two days ago and have to do the GMAT AWA tomorrow. I was hoping you could take a look at a practice essay and give it a grade. Thank you so much!
The following was excerpted from the speech of a spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products, Inc.:
“Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
The argument states that farmers who invested in equipment to switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides should switch back due to continued lower crop yields and monetary losses. Furthermore, it also states the choice to farm organically is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. This argument lacks relevant and sufficient evidence to back up its assumptions ignoring key factors that could affect its conclusion. First, it assumes a continued lower crop yield for organic fertilizers and pesticides based on a one-year report. Additionally, it assumes that the losses from lower continued crop yields are greater than the equipment costs. Finally, it assumes that organic crops have worse profit margins compared to synthetic crops.
The first flaw is the assumption that studies from one year will apply to subsequent years. The studies target farmers who switched to organic farming in the past year, meaning it is their first year of employing organic fertilizers and pesticides. As a result, there exist several potential factors that could explain the low crop yields. For example, the techniques of using these organic fertilizers could be more technical in nature and take a year of learning or the soil may need a year to adapt to the organic products. The argument would be much clearer if it included studies of organic farmers over three to four years.
The second flaw is the assumption that the losses from continued lower crop yields are lesser than the equipment costs of switching to organic fertilizers and pesticides. The argument fails to specify the exact monetary value of the equipment costs and the drop in yield value. For instance, it could be the case that the farmer was making $20,000 worth of crop and with the lower yield is now making $19,999, losing one dollar in value. If the equipment costs even $1,000, a relatively cheap valuation, it would take a 1000 years for the farmer to lose any money. Clearly, without evidence on the monetary value of the equipment and the financial losses, one is left with the impressipm that the claim is more wishful thinking rather. than substantive evidence.
The third flaw is the conlusion that organic crops are financially inferior to synthetic crops because of worse profit margins. This statement makes a baseless assumption about the profitability of organic crops. In the current day food markets, people are willing to pay a much higher price for organic produce than for synthetically grown produce because of their sustainable and healthier nature. Furthermore, the argument also assumes the long-term cost of organic fertilizers and pesticides is higher than the cost of synethic products, when in reality organic costs could easily have a lower variable cost which makes the initial fixed cost worth it. If the argument had provided evidence of synethic crops being equal or higher in cost to organic crops and also having a lower cost of production, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, because the arguments leaps from one year's data to a broad generalized conclusion—without accounting for transition periods, magnitude of cost differences, and profitability of the crops—it fails to prove that synthetic crops are superior financially. Only by supplying solid cost figures, longer studies, and clear profit values for crops could the statement become sound and persuasive.
The following was excerpted from the speech of a spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products, Inc.:
“Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
The argument states that farmers who invested in equipment to switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides should switch back due to continued lower crop yields and monetary losses. Furthermore, it also states the choice to farm organically is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. This argument lacks relevant and sufficient evidence to back up its assumptions ignoring key factors that could affect its conclusion. First, it assumes a continued lower crop yield for organic fertilizers and pesticides based on a one-year report. Additionally, it assumes that the losses from lower continued crop yields are greater than the equipment costs. Finally, it assumes that organic crops have worse profit margins compared to synthetic crops.
The first flaw is the assumption that studies from one year will apply to subsequent years. The studies target farmers who switched to organic farming in the past year, meaning it is their first year of employing organic fertilizers and pesticides. As a result, there exist several potential factors that could explain the low crop yields. For example, the techniques of using these organic fertilizers could be more technical in nature and take a year of learning or the soil may need a year to adapt to the organic products. The argument would be much clearer if it included studies of organic farmers over three to four years.
The second flaw is the assumption that the losses from continued lower crop yields are lesser than the equipment costs of switching to organic fertilizers and pesticides. The argument fails to specify the exact monetary value of the equipment costs and the drop in yield value. For instance, it could be the case that the farmer was making $20,000 worth of crop and with the lower yield is now making $19,999, losing one dollar in value. If the equipment costs even $1,000, a relatively cheap valuation, it would take a 1000 years for the farmer to lose any money. Clearly, without evidence on the monetary value of the equipment and the financial losses, one is left with the impressipm that the claim is more wishful thinking rather. than substantive evidence.
The third flaw is the conlusion that organic crops are financially inferior to synthetic crops because of worse profit margins. This statement makes a baseless assumption about the profitability of organic crops. In the current day food markets, people are willing to pay a much higher price for organic produce than for synthetically grown produce because of their sustainable and healthier nature. Furthermore, the argument also assumes the long-term cost of organic fertilizers and pesticides is higher than the cost of synethic products, when in reality organic costs could easily have a lower variable cost which makes the initial fixed cost worth it. If the argument had provided evidence of synethic crops being equal or higher in cost to organic crops and also having a lower cost of production, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, because the arguments leaps from one year's data to a broad generalized conclusion—without accounting for transition periods, magnitude of cost differences, and profitability of the crops—it fails to prove that synthetic crops are superior financially. Only by supplying solid cost figures, longer studies, and clear profit values for crops could the statement become sound and persuasive.
09 Jun 2025, 09:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
If you're interested in seeing a sample of a 6/6 essay, consider downloading the Free Guide & Essay Questions from the Prepare page (Business Writing Assessment) on the MBA website. It comes with an explanation you may also find helpful.
Moderator:
