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 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.
30 Jul 2021, 05:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument:
“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 analysis:
The argument states that people are not concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as their were a decade ago. This argument contains quite some flaws in terms of the concreteness of the said statement as well as the supporting statements author used to prove his claim. Much has been assumed, which is actually baseless and doesn't leads to the reader reaching any hard conclusion.
The first and major flaw of this argument is that there are not statistical figures provided for anyone to verify the claim made by the author, the use of the phrase 'in general' itself shows the lack of base and strength. There should have been information regarding any surveys conducted, such as a graph comparing people's diet at present and decades ago to make this argument carry any weight. The second flaw is that when author states that Heart's Delight has started keeping varieties of cheeses and butterfat content, it doesn't proves in any way that existing customers of Heart's Delight, who used to buy fruits and vegetables from the store, have now switched to cheese and red meat. This can lead to any conclusion, one of them being that Heart Delight wanted to attract customers who were already meat and cheese consumers from decades, to increase their customer base and hence increase revenue, which makes the author's claim void. Sales figures and proportions should have been provided to analyse if people have really switched their diets. Finally, the author compares the owners of two restaurants, using the criteria of how much money they have, without providing any background. The author claims that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires without clearly stating that whether they gained this sum of money through their restaurant or by other sources of income. Also, there is no details on the prices of dishes and correspondingly the per customer profitability of each restaurant, as Good Earth Cafe may have much more customers than House of Beef, but due to their dishes being very cheap and nominally priced they don't earn as much profit as the latter.
All these flaws make it very hard for this argument to prove what it aimed to. Instead of a factual and informative article this seems more like a personal opinion which is not backed by any evidence or factual data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
“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 analysis:
The argument states that people are not concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as their were a decade ago. This argument contains quite some flaws in terms of the concreteness of the said statement as well as the supporting statements author used to prove his claim. Much has been assumed, which is actually baseless and doesn't leads to the reader reaching any hard conclusion.
The first and major flaw of this argument is that there are not statistical figures provided for anyone to verify the claim made by the author, the use of the phrase 'in general' itself shows the lack of base and strength. There should have been information regarding any surveys conducted, such as a graph comparing people's diet at present and decades ago to make this argument carry any weight. The second flaw is that when author states that Heart's Delight has started keeping varieties of cheeses and butterfat content, it doesn't proves in any way that existing customers of Heart's Delight, who used to buy fruits and vegetables from the store, have now switched to cheese and red meat. This can lead to any conclusion, one of them being that Heart Delight wanted to attract customers who were already meat and cheese consumers from decades, to increase their customer base and hence increase revenue, which makes the author's claim void. Sales figures and proportions should have been provided to analyse if people have really switched their diets. Finally, the author compares the owners of two restaurants, using the criteria of how much money they have, without providing any background. The author claims that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires without clearly stating that whether they gained this sum of money through their restaurant or by other sources of income. Also, there is no details on the prices of dishes and correspondingly the per customer profitability of each restaurant, as Good Earth Cafe may have much more customers than House of Beef, but due to their dishes being very cheap and nominally priced they don't earn as much profit as the latter.
All these flaws make it very hard for this argument to prove what it aimed to. Instead of a factual and informative article this seems more like a personal opinion which is not backed by any evidence or factual data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
01 Aug 2021, 10:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 3 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 1.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 1.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Follow the below link for AWA guide
https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html
For AWA posting rule: https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Good Luck
abhivashisht98
04 Aug 2021, 09:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my essay and kindly give me some feedback. This is my first attempt.
The author claims that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. He cites his/her observations about how one store, heart's Delight sells both cheeses and organic fruits and vegetables. The author goes on to say that the owners of House of Beef are well-off as opposed to the owners of Good Earth Café. The author prematurely concludes that all these observations point to people's indifference to regulating food intake. The author's reasoning has several flaws and is based on assumptions which may or may not be true. The most important flaws and the most pressing unaddressed assumptions are discussed below.
First, the author readily assumes that the financial status of the owners of a business is directly indicative of the success of the food store they own. What if the owners of House of Beef have another business which is the main reason for their affluence? What if the owners of Good Earth Café are choosing to direct their profits to another eco-friendly organization and choosing to live a modest living? Without further evidence, these assumptions are weak.
Second, the author's argument also takes one store as a example to conclude that all stores are selling cheese along with organic fruits and vegetables as a result of decrease in people's concern on regulating red meat and fatty cheeses. This is a critical flaw in the argument's reasoning since there can be more stores which do not encourage cheeses than stores which do, in total.
The argument also draws a questionable inference: since Heart's Delight was meant to sell organic produce and whole grain flours in 1960s and now has shifted to including cheese in its selection, it did so only because people are becoming more careless about their cheese intake. There is no clear evidence to infer this confidently. Hence, the arguments suffers from this logical flaw as well.
In order to add more supporting evidence to his argument, the author can do well to include a survey which can indicate that the level of concern in people with regards to regulating their cheese and red meat intake has decreased over the past 10 years. In fact, there are no relevant statistics that can be used to arrive at the author's conclusion. Statistics regarding people's affinity towards red meat and fatty cheeses, percentage of population consuming red meat and fatty cheeses and trend plotted to show intent to regulate red meat and fatty cheeses intake will serve as evidence without which the argument cannot be substantiated.
In summary, the author observes a store's selection and the affluence of the owners of two businesses to conclude that people are less concerned about a certain intake. The author's argument is based on inexistent evidence and possibly weak assumptions. Thus, the conclusion, although valid, is baseless and can only be arrived at after filling the afore-mentioned information gaps.
The author claims that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. He cites his/her observations about how one store, heart's Delight sells both cheeses and organic fruits and vegetables. The author goes on to say that the owners of House of Beef are well-off as opposed to the owners of Good Earth Café. The author prematurely concludes that all these observations point to people's indifference to regulating food intake. The author's reasoning has several flaws and is based on assumptions which may or may not be true. The most important flaws and the most pressing unaddressed assumptions are discussed below.
First, the author readily assumes that the financial status of the owners of a business is directly indicative of the success of the food store they own. What if the owners of House of Beef have another business which is the main reason for their affluence? What if the owners of Good Earth Café are choosing to direct their profits to another eco-friendly organization and choosing to live a modest living? Without further evidence, these assumptions are weak.
Second, the author's argument also takes one store as a example to conclude that all stores are selling cheese along with organic fruits and vegetables as a result of decrease in people's concern on regulating red meat and fatty cheeses. This is a critical flaw in the argument's reasoning since there can be more stores which do not encourage cheeses than stores which do, in total.
The argument also draws a questionable inference: since Heart's Delight was meant to sell organic produce and whole grain flours in 1960s and now has shifted to including cheese in its selection, it did so only because people are becoming more careless about their cheese intake. There is no clear evidence to infer this confidently. Hence, the arguments suffers from this logical flaw as well.
In order to add more supporting evidence to his argument, the author can do well to include a survey which can indicate that the level of concern in people with regards to regulating their cheese and red meat intake has decreased over the past 10 years. In fact, there are no relevant statistics that can be used to arrive at the author's conclusion. Statistics regarding people's affinity towards red meat and fatty cheeses, percentage of population consuming red meat and fatty cheeses and trend plotted to show intent to regulate red meat and fatty cheeses intake will serve as evidence without which the argument cannot be substantiated.
In summary, the author observes a store's selection and the affluence of the owners of two businesses to conclude that people are less concerned about a certain intake. The author's argument is based on inexistent evidence and possibly weak assumptions. Thus, the conclusion, although valid, is baseless and can only be arrived at after filling the afore-mentioned information gaps.
