Status: All in for MBA
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
WE: Operations (Energy and Utilities)
, given: 34
Please evaluate my AWA [#permalink]
06 May 2013, 05:20
Hi, I took the GMATPrep practice paper and wrote the AWA, which was asked in the practice exam.
Pls evaluate my AWA and tell me where I stand on the scale of 1 - 6.
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."
The write up presented in the argument above has a set of premises which is followed by a conclusion. The assumptions made in these premises are sceptical to arguments as the assumptions are not strong enough to support the conclusion. The writer should have used some factual evidences to support his/her case.
First of all, the foreign company copied motorcycle's design and state that the copied version failed to attract the motorcycle X customers even though it was priced at a lesser value. The writer attributed the failure to one specific feature of motorcycle X and that is its exceptionally loud noise. The writer should have provided the readers with some statistics that the failure to sell motorcycle was mostly because of loud noise, there is no concrete evidence to prove it. It might be true that the customers of motorcycle X prefer brand, as the motorcycle has been in manufacturing since 70 years and must have become a big brand by now, than the lost cost foreign version.
Secondly, comparison of foreign car with motorcycle does not help to strengthen the argument as both are different entities. May be customers prefer quieter version in cars and louder version in motorcycles. It may also be true that foreign cars have better features to look for than in similar American-made cars. Hence, the comparison between cars and motorcycles is ambiguous and lends no help in strengthening the conclusion.
Thirdly, the writer makes a valid point that the television advertisements promote motorcycle X on its durability and sleek lines rather than the loud noise it makes. It might be true that since the motorcycle X has been in manufacturing for over 70 years, the customers already know about the motorcycle's loud noise. May be motorcycle X has been consistent in the loud noise features for all the variants manufactured till date and decided to show only the upgraded variants from the past versions of motorcycles. This point could have been more conclusive if the writer took some of the above mentioned points into consideration.
The writer forgets to mention some of the strong points to make his/her conclusion concrete. Some of the questions raised above can help the writer in bringing out a much better and stronger conclusion.