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
12 Feb 2014, 05:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of KMTV, a television station.
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for advertising spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The conclusion in this argument is that KMTV should focus its programming on farming issue to increase application for advertising spots. Several reasons are presented in support of the argument. First of all, the author points out that a neighboring town’s channel—the KOOP channel, made a change and got a success. In addition, the author believes that if KMTV makes the same shift, they will get the same result. While the reasons seem logical and sufficient from the first sight, they suffer from some flaws that seriously undermine the conclusion after a further analysis.
First, the author makes a wrong connection between KMTV and KOOP. Although they are both television channel, we can’t conclude that the same swift will show the same outcome. What if the KMTV is in a town that more likes an urban district while the KOOP is set in the place which more likes a suburb? Then the success of the KOOP is more rational because he chooses the right spot. Therefore, this part of the argument is unconvincing.
Second, the author falsely sets his conclusion on the assumption that only the shift makes KOOP get success in increasing its advertise application. It is entirely possible that KOOP has made a deal with these advertisers. If they pay the money to the channel, then the channel will play some programmes in order to make their meets---to generalize their products on the programmes to the audience . Moreover, perhaps the channel has prepared for a long time to these programmes, the advertisers know them, trust them and put money on them because they believe the number of the audience who watches these programmes will be large, that is to say, many people will watch the advertising and buy their products. Under these circumstances, the credibility of the author’s conclusion is really doubtful.
All in all, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, we need to know other information such as the background of the two channels, the difference and the similarity between the two channels and even the desires of these advertisers.
Feeling great to write an AWA essay because it is almost free to write, Could someone rate my essay? Thanks in advance
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for advertising spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The conclusion in this argument is that KMTV should focus its programming on farming issue to increase application for advertising spots. Several reasons are presented in support of the argument. First of all, the author points out that a neighboring town’s channel—the KOOP channel, made a change and got a success. In addition, the author believes that if KMTV makes the same shift, they will get the same result. While the reasons seem logical and sufficient from the first sight, they suffer from some flaws that seriously undermine the conclusion after a further analysis.
First, the author makes a wrong connection between KMTV and KOOP. Although they are both television channel, we can’t conclude that the same swift will show the same outcome. What if the KMTV is in a town that more likes an urban district while the KOOP is set in the place which more likes a suburb? Then the success of the KOOP is more rational because he chooses the right spot. Therefore, this part of the argument is unconvincing.
Second, the author falsely sets his conclusion on the assumption that only the shift makes KOOP get success in increasing its advertise application. It is entirely possible that KOOP has made a deal with these advertisers. If they pay the money to the channel, then the channel will play some programmes in order to make their meets---to generalize their products on the programmes to the audience . Moreover, perhaps the channel has prepared for a long time to these programmes, the advertisers know them, trust them and put money on them because they believe the number of the audience who watches these programmes will be large, that is to say, many people will watch the advertising and buy their products. Under these circumstances, the credibility of the author’s conclusion is really doubtful.
All in all, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, we need to know other information such as the background of the two channels, the difference and the similarity between the two channels and even the desires of these advertisers.
Feeling great to write an AWA essay because it is almost free to write, Could someone rate my essay? Thanks in advance
Moderators:
188 posts
