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.
11 Feb 2019, 02:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a popular science and
technology magazine.
“It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted-consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.”
In this article, the writer discusses the relationship between the increase in income of customers and the proportion of that Income spent on food. The writer concludes that as the portion of the income of average customers spent is not increasing proportionally with the advancements in agricultural technology and the customers are not benefiting from the improvements in agricultural technology.
However, there a lot of other factors that the author needs to consider before drawing such a firm conclusion. For example, It is plausible that the primary objective of advancements in agricultural technology is to make food less expensive for the customers, so that they can spend less on food, and more on other equally important aspects of life. Less expensive food is an objective that almost every country wants to achieve, as it significantly improves the quality of life and helps in eradicating hunger and poverty. If this is the case, customers are benefiting from the advancements of agricultural technology, which the writer has failed to consider.
Secondly, the writer has based his conclusion on so-called "granted customers". While almost every country is fighting against poverty, it is wrong to draw a conclusion only based on the privileged customers who are generally in the minority, and not paying attention to the "not so granted" customers, who are working hard just to fulfil the basic requirements of life. If agricultural advancements are helping people get less expensive food, It is bliss and unequivocally benefiting.
Thirdly, the writer should also consider the increase in the incomes of people. For example, ten years ago if the average salary of people in a country used to be $1000 per month, and the food cost them $100 which is 1/10th of their income. And now, the average salary is $5000 and on average current spending on food is $450, which is less than 1/10th of their current income, but, the people are spending way more on food then they used to.
Lastly, The writer also needs to consider the average number of people employed in a family. For example 10 years ago, the trend was that only one member of the family works, so apparently, he/she has to spend a much more proportion of salary on food. But, if the current trend is that almost every member of the family contributes on the total family income, then, the proportion of salary spent on food by an individual member of the family will be way less.
In sum, various factors can play a role in determining the benefits of agricultural advancements amongst the people and the writer needs to consider the above-stated points before concluding.
technology magazine.
“It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted-consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.”
In this article, the writer discusses the relationship between the increase in income of customers and the proportion of that Income spent on food. The writer concludes that as the portion of the income of average customers spent is not increasing proportionally with the advancements in agricultural technology and the customers are not benefiting from the improvements in agricultural technology.
However, there a lot of other factors that the author needs to consider before drawing such a firm conclusion. For example, It is plausible that the primary objective of advancements in agricultural technology is to make food less expensive for the customers, so that they can spend less on food, and more on other equally important aspects of life. Less expensive food is an objective that almost every country wants to achieve, as it significantly improves the quality of life and helps in eradicating hunger and poverty. If this is the case, customers are benefiting from the advancements of agricultural technology, which the writer has failed to consider.
Secondly, the writer has based his conclusion on so-called "granted customers". While almost every country is fighting against poverty, it is wrong to draw a conclusion only based on the privileged customers who are generally in the minority, and not paying attention to the "not so granted" customers, who are working hard just to fulfil the basic requirements of life. If agricultural advancements are helping people get less expensive food, It is bliss and unequivocally benefiting.
Thirdly, the writer should also consider the increase in the incomes of people. For example, ten years ago if the average salary of people in a country used to be $1000 per month, and the food cost them $100 which is 1/10th of their income. And now, the average salary is $5000 and on average current spending on food is $450, which is less than 1/10th of their current income, but, the people are spending way more on food then they used to.
Lastly, The writer also needs to consider the average number of people employed in a family. For example 10 years ago, the trend was that only one member of the family works, so apparently, he/she has to spend a much more proportion of salary on food. But, if the current trend is that almost every member of the family contributes on the total family income, then, the proportion of salary spent on food by an individual member of the family will be way less.
In sum, various factors can play a role in determining the benefits of agricultural advancements amongst the people and the writer needs to consider the above-stated points before concluding.
17 Feb 2019, 12:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Rahul - To be honest, you need to put in some more effort on the AWA section. Please realize that the AWA section tests your writing capabilities, not your ability to make strong arguments. As written, the AWA section has several grammar flaws. You have not used proper structural keywords. Typically, test takers do not need more than 2-3 days of time to come up with a template and then practice a few essays. You do not need to sweat it out, though. All the best. 
11 Oct 2022, 22:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my essay, thanks
-----------------------------------------
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a popular science and technology magazine:
“It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted, consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
-----------------------------------------
The argument states that consumers are not benefitting from technological advances in the field of agriculture. This is primarily based on the premise that while there is a decrease in the portion of income spent on food, the demand for food does not rise proportionately with the rise in real income. Not only is this line of reasoning unsubstantiated, but it also makes several assumptions that must be addressed.
The argument compares three different metrics without sufficient correlation: the price of a product, demand for the said product, and consumer income. Firstly, the argument states that the consumer's real income is increasing and expects the demand for food to increase accordingly. Even if the consumer income is truly increasing, it does not necessarily mean these consumers will spend more of their income on food, considering that food is a necessity rather than a luxury. Secondly, the argument fails to consider the possibility that a decrease in food prices may lead to food becoming more affordable to people, therefore an increase in the overall consumer population. In such a case, while the demand for food in the current consumer population remains constant, the overall demand for food has increased due to the lower costs.
Furthermore, the argument’s conclusion that agricultural advancements do not benefit consumers is strictly based on the decreasing proportion of expenditure on food. This line of reasoning is flawed and fails to account for several other benefits. For instance, money saved on food could be put to other uses, such as education or healthcare, which would help better consumer lives.
Therefore, the argument, as it stands, holds little strength for contextual questioning. In order to better assess the impact of agricultural advancements on end users, it is important to evaluate if there is an improvement in quality of life. The assessment should be done based on several interrelated, socio-economic factors to provide a more holistic perspective.
-----------------------------------------
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a popular science and technology magazine:
“It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted, consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
-----------------------------------------
The argument states that consumers are not benefitting from technological advances in the field of agriculture. This is primarily based on the premise that while there is a decrease in the portion of income spent on food, the demand for food does not rise proportionately with the rise in real income. Not only is this line of reasoning unsubstantiated, but it also makes several assumptions that must be addressed.
The argument compares three different metrics without sufficient correlation: the price of a product, demand for the said product, and consumer income. Firstly, the argument states that the consumer's real income is increasing and expects the demand for food to increase accordingly. Even if the consumer income is truly increasing, it does not necessarily mean these consumers will spend more of their income on food, considering that food is a necessity rather than a luxury. Secondly, the argument fails to consider the possibility that a decrease in food prices may lead to food becoming more affordable to people, therefore an increase in the overall consumer population. In such a case, while the demand for food in the current consumer population remains constant, the overall demand for food has increased due to the lower costs.
Furthermore, the argument’s conclusion that agricultural advancements do not benefit consumers is strictly based on the decreasing proportion of expenditure on food. This line of reasoning is flawed and fails to account for several other benefits. For instance, money saved on food could be put to other uses, such as education or healthcare, which would help better consumer lives.
Therefore, the argument, as it stands, holds little strength for contextual questioning. In order to better assess the impact of agricultural advancements on end users, it is important to evaluate if there is an improvement in quality of life. The assessment should be done based on several interrelated, socio-economic factors to provide a more holistic perspective.
