Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
avlachos99
Joined: 03 Feb 2022
Last visit: 11 Jun 2022
Posts: 10
Given Kudos: 12
Location: Greece
Schools: Other Schools
GPA: 3.67
05 Apr 2022, 09:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer:
The author of the argument suggests that an individual should opt for eye-strengthening exercises instead of corrective lenses in order to save a great deal of money. This is based on evidence that the users of eyeglasses and contact lenses face more eye-related problems than non-users face, and the need to replace their usually costly equipment within short time periods. Nevertheless, the argument fails to document the usefullness of eye-strengthening exercises prior to recommending them, mistakes correlation for causation in the case of eye-related problems and flaws for representativeness in the case of the example that is presented.
First and foremost, there is no evidence to support that an eye-strengthening program is at least, or nearly as effective as eyewear equipment. In particular, the author does not mention how long such a program should last in order to be effective or how effective would it be, even, in the long term. Unless providing such information, one can merely assume that such a program would necessitate the use of eyewear equipment in parallel and by no means replace it, leading to no cost savings.
Moreover, the author is hasty enough to assume that eyeglasses and contact lenses are responsible for the eye-related problems their users report. It is well known that people who do have issues with their eyesight or eyes, in general, are the ones who use such equipment. Hence, it is no surprise that these same users report more eye-related problems, not due to causation but due to correlation. This evidence could have been better documented, had the other made a comparison between people with eye-related problems who use eyewear equipment and those who do not, despite being advised to do so.
Last but not least, the author mentions that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions as times passes and presents an example of a woman that had to change lenses within a year. This kind of evidence falls short in two respects. On the one hand, it is not stated whether the same people wearing eyeglasses would not require stronger prescriptions had they not be wearing them. On the contrary, the might have needed stronger prescriptions in even shorter timeframes. On the other hand, the mention of a woman needing to change lenses within a year could be an extreme example not representative to the mass of eyeglass wearers needing stronger prescriptions.
All in all, the author of the argument falls for reasoning mistakes and fails to provide sound evidence for his recommendation to be well-documented. A flaw of representativeness, two cases of correlation mistaken for causation, as well as a completely missing evidence -how an eye-strengthening program could replace eyewear equipment- are enough to conclude that his recommendation is not to be trusted.
Posted from my mobile device
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer:
The author of the argument suggests that an individual should opt for eye-strengthening exercises instead of corrective lenses in order to save a great deal of money. This is based on evidence that the users of eyeglasses and contact lenses face more eye-related problems than non-users face, and the need to replace their usually costly equipment within short time periods. Nevertheless, the argument fails to document the usefullness of eye-strengthening exercises prior to recommending them, mistakes correlation for causation in the case of eye-related problems and flaws for representativeness in the case of the example that is presented.
First and foremost, there is no evidence to support that an eye-strengthening program is at least, or nearly as effective as eyewear equipment. In particular, the author does not mention how long such a program should last in order to be effective or how effective would it be, even, in the long term. Unless providing such information, one can merely assume that such a program would necessitate the use of eyewear equipment in parallel and by no means replace it, leading to no cost savings.
Moreover, the author is hasty enough to assume that eyeglasses and contact lenses are responsible for the eye-related problems their users report. It is well known that people who do have issues with their eyesight or eyes, in general, are the ones who use such equipment. Hence, it is no surprise that these same users report more eye-related problems, not due to causation but due to correlation. This evidence could have been better documented, had the other made a comparison between people with eye-related problems who use eyewear equipment and those who do not, despite being advised to do so.
Last but not least, the author mentions that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions as times passes and presents an example of a woman that had to change lenses within a year. This kind of evidence falls short in two respects. On the one hand, it is not stated whether the same people wearing eyeglasses would not require stronger prescriptions had they not be wearing them. On the contrary, the might have needed stronger prescriptions in even shorter timeframes. On the other hand, the mention of a woman needing to change lenses within a year could be an extreme example not representative to the mass of eyeglass wearers needing stronger prescriptions.
All in all, the author of the argument falls for reasoning mistakes and fails to provide sound evidence for his recommendation to be well-documented. A flaw of representativeness, two cases of correlation mistaken for causation, as well as a completely missing evidence -how an eye-strengthening program could replace eyewear equipment- are enough to conclude that his recommendation is not to be trusted.
Posted from my mobile device
06 Apr 2022, 02:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 4.5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 4/5
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
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: 3.5/5
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 GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 4/5
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
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: 3.5/5
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!
Good Luck
avlachos99
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer:
The author of the argument suggests that an individual should opt for eye-strengthening exercises instead of corrective lenses in order to save a great deal of money. This is based on evidence that the users of eyeglasses and contact lenses face more eye-related problems than non-users face, and the need to replace their usually costly equipment within short time periods. Nevertheless, the argument fails to document the usefullness of eye-strengthening exercises prior to recommending them, mistakes correlation for causation in the case of eye-related problems and flaws for representativeness in the case of the example that is presented.
First and foremost, there is no evidence to support that an eye-strengthening program is at least, or nearly as effective as eyewear equipment. In particular, the author does not mention how long such a program should last in order to be effective or how effective would it be, even, in the long term. Unless providing such information, one can merely assume that such a program would necessitate the use of eyewear equipment in parallel and by no means replace it, leading to no cost savings.
Moreover, the author is hasty enough to assume that eyeglasses and contact lenses are responsible for the eye-related problems their users report. It is well known that people who do have issues with their eyesight or eyes, in general, are the ones who use such equipment. Hence, it is no surprise that these same users report more eye-related problems, not due to causation but due to correlation. This evidence could have been better documented, had the other made a comparison between people with eye-related problems who use eyewear equipment and those who do not, despite being advised to do so.
Last but not least, the author mentions that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions as times passes and presents an example of a woman that had to change lenses within a year. This kind of evidence falls short in two respects. On the one hand, it is not stated whether the same people wearing eyeglasses would not require stronger prescriptions had they not be wearing them. On the contrary, the might have needed stronger prescriptions in even shorter timeframes. On the other hand, the mention of a woman needing to change lenses within a year could be an extreme example not representative to the mass of eyeglass wearers needing stronger prescriptions.
All in all, the author of the argument falls for reasoning mistakes and fails to provide sound evidence for his recommendation to be well-documented. A flaw of representativeness, two cases of correlation mistaken for causation, as well as a completely missing evidence -how an eye-strengthening program could replace eyewear equipment- are enough to conclude that his recommendation is not to be trusted.
Posted from my mobile device
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer:
The author of the argument suggests that an individual should opt for eye-strengthening exercises instead of corrective lenses in order to save a great deal of money. This is based on evidence that the users of eyeglasses and contact lenses face more eye-related problems than non-users face, and the need to replace their usually costly equipment within short time periods. Nevertheless, the argument fails to document the usefullness of eye-strengthening exercises prior to recommending them, mistakes correlation for causation in the case of eye-related problems and flaws for representativeness in the case of the example that is presented.
First and foremost, there is no evidence to support that an eye-strengthening program is at least, or nearly as effective as eyewear equipment. In particular, the author does not mention how long such a program should last in order to be effective or how effective would it be, even, in the long term. Unless providing such information, one can merely assume that such a program would necessitate the use of eyewear equipment in parallel and by no means replace it, leading to no cost savings.
Moreover, the author is hasty enough to assume that eyeglasses and contact lenses are responsible for the eye-related problems their users report. It is well known that people who do have issues with their eyesight or eyes, in general, are the ones who use such equipment. Hence, it is no surprise that these same users report more eye-related problems, not due to causation but due to correlation. This evidence could have been better documented, had the other made a comparison between people with eye-related problems who use eyewear equipment and those who do not, despite being advised to do so.
Last but not least, the author mentions that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions as times passes and presents an example of a woman that had to change lenses within a year. This kind of evidence falls short in two respects. On the one hand, it is not stated whether the same people wearing eyeglasses would not require stronger prescriptions had they not be wearing them. On the contrary, the might have needed stronger prescriptions in even shorter timeframes. On the other hand, the mention of a woman needing to change lenses within a year could be an extreme example not representative to the mass of eyeglass wearers needing stronger prescriptions.
All in all, the author of the argument falls for reasoning mistakes and fails to provide sound evidence for his recommendation to be well-documented. A flaw of representativeness, two cases of correlation mistaken for causation, as well as a completely missing evidence -how an eye-strengthening program could replace eyewear equipment- are enough to conclude that his recommendation is not to be trusted.
Posted from my mobile device
Moderators:
