|
|
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.
Someonelse
08 May 2017, 02:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
My GMAT exam is on Thursday the 18th and to exercise the AWA I try to write one essay per day!
If you give me feedback on what to improve, I will very much appreciate it!
Here is the link to my previous post: Day 1
Do you think I improved? Did I take a step backwards? Please tell me!
Writing Time: 29:30 - however I cheated sometimes to look at my template.
The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:
“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and
services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will
increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly
during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those
products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument states that because middle-aged consumers spend a higher proportion of their retail expenditure in department stores that younger consumers and the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically in the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly. This trend is also the reason why department stores should start replacing products targeted towards younger customers with products targeted towards middle-aged customers. This argument has several flaws, flaws that make it weak, dubious and unconvincing. There is a lack of cogency for two reasons: First, there is no guarantee that the middle-aged consumer in the future have the same buying behavior as the middle-aged consumers today and switching out products in order to be more attractive to older consumers may be short-sighted.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the younger consumers will change their buying behaviour when they become older and spend a higher proportion of the expenditures at department stores than they do now. This assumption is far fetched. To illustrate, one could think of a young person who prefers to use webstores like Amazon or Barnes and Nobles over regular offline stores. When this person grows older, there is no reason to believe that he will start to change his habit and start going to department stores. Moreover, even if the younger generation still buys from brick and mortar stores in the future, there is no evidence to believe that the consumer will purchase mostly from department stores. It could be that they prefer small convience stores or boutiques for their purchases. The argument could be much improved if the author provided compelling evidence for his assumption. As it stands, this conclusion is not convincing.
Secondly, the argument concludes that because the number of middle-aged people will increase, the department stores should begin with switching out products which target younger customers with products which target older customers. This is a myopic conclusion because it neglects the customer relationship that ought to be built. If the department stores want to win the middle-aged consumers of tomorrow, they need to to gain the loyalty of the young customers today. A good example of this strategy in action is the store chain "Target". Target specificially attracts customers when they are young and provides them with products for all stages of life - from living alone to marrying and to starting a family. In order to be more convincing, the argument must explain further why this strategy is beneficial for stores.
In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. It could considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. To allow for a better evaluation of the argument, the author needs to explain why he believes that the consumer behavior won't change and why the change in the product portfolio is beneficial.
If you give me feedback on what to improve, I will very much appreciate it!
Here is the link to my previous post: Day 1
Do you think I improved? Did I take a step backwards? Please tell me!
Writing Time: 29:30 - however I cheated sometimes to look at my template.
The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:
“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and
services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will
increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly
during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those
products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument states that because middle-aged consumers spend a higher proportion of their retail expenditure in department stores that younger consumers and the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically in the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly. This trend is also the reason why department stores should start replacing products targeted towards younger customers with products targeted towards middle-aged customers. This argument has several flaws, flaws that make it weak, dubious and unconvincing. There is a lack of cogency for two reasons: First, there is no guarantee that the middle-aged consumer in the future have the same buying behavior as the middle-aged consumers today and switching out products in order to be more attractive to older consumers may be short-sighted.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the younger consumers will change their buying behaviour when they become older and spend a higher proportion of the expenditures at department stores than they do now. This assumption is far fetched. To illustrate, one could think of a young person who prefers to use webstores like Amazon or Barnes and Nobles over regular offline stores. When this person grows older, there is no reason to believe that he will start to change his habit and start going to department stores. Moreover, even if the younger generation still buys from brick and mortar stores in the future, there is no evidence to believe that the consumer will purchase mostly from department stores. It could be that they prefer small convience stores or boutiques for their purchases. The argument could be much improved if the author provided compelling evidence for his assumption. As it stands, this conclusion is not convincing.
Secondly, the argument concludes that because the number of middle-aged people will increase, the department stores should begin with switching out products which target younger customers with products which target older customers. This is a myopic conclusion because it neglects the customer relationship that ought to be built. If the department stores want to win the middle-aged consumers of tomorrow, they need to to gain the loyalty of the young customers today. A good example of this strategy in action is the store chain "Target". Target specificially attracts customers when they are young and provides them with products for all stages of life - from living alone to marrying and to starting a family. In order to be more convincing, the argument must explain further why this strategy is beneficial for stores.
In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. It could considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. To allow for a better evaluation of the argument, the author needs to explain why he believes that the consumer behavior won't change and why the change in the product portfolio is beneficial.
Moderator:
