Looking for feedback on sample AWA essay

Hmmm. I don't read it that way. I see the phrase "has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s" as implying that the volume of business at the new location is less than (how much, who knows?) it was at the old location.

Passage says: Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there.

So, it is clear that time has elapsed since Hippocrene started functioning at the new location (perhaps 1 year +).

Also, there is difference between:

CC's volume of business has dropped "somewhat from the previous year's

And

CC's volume of business has dropped "somewhat from the previous years'

"year's" just means it is comparing one year back. So, I am thinking it is comparing CC's performance at the "new location" only (this year vs previous year).

Let's see what others have to say. Do you have an official explanation, by any chance?

The argument states that Healthy Heart fitness center should lower membership fees to increase usage by its members, rather than installing expensive new features. This conclusion is based on the observation that usage did not significantly increase following the construction of an indoor pool. However, this observation is ambiguous, and does not adequately support the conclusion.

First, the argument provides no specific details about the usage before and after the construction of the pool; we only know that it did not increase significantly. This sort of language depends greatly on the discretion of the author, and could be misleading. Suppose, for instance, that prior to construction of the pool, usage was declining at a rate of 5% per month, and in the initial month after the pool opened, usage increased by 1% over the previous month. Taken in isolation, the 1% increase might be deemed "insignificant" by some, but in the larger context it certainly shows a break in the prior pattern, and thus could be deemed significant. In addition, the argument fails to disclose the amount of time elapsed since the pool was opened to members, and whether a concerted effort was made to inform members of its completion. If, for instance, the insignificant increase in usage was over a period of a few days after the pool opened, and no effort was made to inform members, it would be unreasonable to infer that expensive new features would not lead to an increase in usage.

Second, while the argument reccommends lowering membership fees to increase usage, it provides no evidence in support of this. At first glance, it seems unreasonable to assume that usage would increase if membership fees were lowered, since members would presumably pay those fees regardless of the usage (unless the "membership fees" mentioned are on a per-use basis). It is also possible that such an action could in fact decrease membership (and reduce the likelihood of increasing usage in the future), since many memberships are paid automatically and are "out of sight, out of mind." By decreasing membership fees, many who don't use the facilities might be reminded that they are still being charged, and cancel membership.

Finally, the argument offers no analysis of why usage at the fitness center declined prior to the construction of the pool. In order to effectively argue for particular remedy, one must be well informed of the possible reasons for the problem. In this case, perhaps membership declined due to the erosion in quality, due to age, of many of the fitness center's sports facilities. In that scenario, it would seem that by investing in an expensive new sports facility Healthy Heart might increase usage to prior levels.

In order to strengthen the argument that Healthy Heart should decrease membership fees rather than invest in expensive new features, additional information about the changes in membership before and after the construction of the pool would be neccessary, along with some reasoning regarding why the lowering of fees would increase usage. As it stands, the argument is insufficent.

The argument states that organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming. This conclusion is based on the observation that famers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year saw a decline in crop yield, and the assumption that continued losses from relatively lower organic crop yields would outweigh the costs of investing in synthetic farming supplies and equipment. However, this line of reasoning is insufficient to warrant such a broad sweeping conclusion.

To begin, the author cites the fact that farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming saw a decline in crop yield. However, this language is somewhat ambiguous, as there is no indication of how severe the decline actually was; a 0.1% decline in yield could be considered statistical variance, whereas a 70% decline in yield might be cause for concern. Furthermore, there is no discussion of whether such declines are common in the first few years after new farming practices are adopted. Perhaps the plants need one or several cycles to reach full production capacity, regardless of method. In that case, switching back to synthetic from organic might actually prolong the decline in crop yields.

Next, the author acknowledges that many of the farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming believe it would be too expensive to switch back, but goes on to say that losses from lower crop yields would outweigh the costs associated with switching back. However, no evidence is provided to support this assumption. In fact, just because there was a decline in crop yields doesn't necessarily mean these farmers are experiencing losses. Organic crops often fetch a premium price from consumers, and the same margins can be realized with lower quantities. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is no evidence that the decline in crop yields will continue into the future.

Finally, the author makes the sweeping claim that orangic farmers should switch to synthetic farming. Note, this is not simply organic farmers who swtiched from synthetic last year (the population of the initial observation). Rather, this is a statement concerning all organic farmers. Despite this broad conclusion, the author provides no evidence that other organic farmers are experiencing losses or declines in yeilds. In addition, there is no discussion of the relative health of the organic and synthetic markets, and whether the shift of all organic farmers to synthetic farming would cause a glut in the synthetic market, driving down prices and causing significant losses.

In order to strengthen the argument presented, the author would need to provide more compelling evidence that organic farming is unprofitable enough relative to synthetic farming to warrant a shift. This evidence could include a more detailed analysis of market conditions, up-front and long-term costs, crop yields, etc, spanning multiple years. Also, the author would need to soften the apparent recommendation that all organic farmers should switch to synthetic, since it is extremely unlikely that any additional amount of information would warrant such an extreme conclusion. As it stands, the argument provides very little justification its current recommendation.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.