|
|
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.
04 Jul 2018, 20:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey guys! This is my first trial practicing an AWA... and it took me much more than 30 minutes. I'd like to know if I'm going into a right direction...... Please share your thoughts!
Q: “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 products 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.”
A:
This argument concludes that the foreign company that produces a motorcycle similar to Motorcycle X has failed to attract the existing customers because it is not as loud as the original. This conclusion, based solely on certain feature among all different reasons for the purchase, is tenuous at best. This argument fails to address other important purchasing factors of a motorcycle and any plausible evidence to support the claim. There are a few key assumptions that require additional information to be validated and without additional information, this argument rests solely on assumption and not fact.
The first key flaw with this argument is around the assumption that the so-called copycat of Motorcycle X’s products failed to attract motorcycle X customers. Such assumption is presented without any market share data of Motorcycle X and the foreign company, thus making it unconvincing. In addition, even before we think about the market share, the author mentioned that the foreign company’s products did not attract the motorcycle X customers. To evaluate whether or not the foreign company’s products are attractive, the author should expand its popularity to the general customers. Without such information, it is hard to agree with the author’s claim which functions as the premise to other assumptions and contentions the author tries to convey.
The second key flaw is around the assumption that the deciding factor on the motorcycle purchase lies in the exceptionally loud noise feature. There is no evidence that such claim is true unless there is any supporting survey result from the customers. In addition, even if there is any supporting survey result, if the survey participants only fall into the Motorcycle X’s loyal customers, such result will not be as convincing unless the sample constitutes majority of the general customer population.
The third key flaw is around the last sentence mentioning about the television advertisements for motorcycle X. The author mentioning about the TV ads only damages his contention that the exceptionally loud noise is the key factor in motorcycle purchases because what we can infer from the TV ads is that at least from the company’s viewpoint the loud noise isn’t the purchasing factor. Since the Motorcycle X is the one making profits from its sales, there is no reason that they wouldn’t advertise the loud noise feature.
In sum, the author failed to convince me that the foreign company failed to attract customers and the differentiator between Motorcycle X’s products and other’s is the exceptionally loud noise. While on the surface this argument may sound logical, it lacked a great deal of information that is integral to identifying the validity of an argument. In order to convince people to buy in to one’s idea, he/she should be wary of the missing pieces in evaluating his/her assumptions.
Q: “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 products 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.”
A:
This argument concludes that the foreign company that produces a motorcycle similar to Motorcycle X has failed to attract the existing customers because it is not as loud as the original. This conclusion, based solely on certain feature among all different reasons for the purchase, is tenuous at best. This argument fails to address other important purchasing factors of a motorcycle and any plausible evidence to support the claim. There are a few key assumptions that require additional information to be validated and without additional information, this argument rests solely on assumption and not fact.
The first key flaw with this argument is around the assumption that the so-called copycat of Motorcycle X’s products failed to attract motorcycle X customers. Such assumption is presented without any market share data of Motorcycle X and the foreign company, thus making it unconvincing. In addition, even before we think about the market share, the author mentioned that the foreign company’s products did not attract the motorcycle X customers. To evaluate whether or not the foreign company’s products are attractive, the author should expand its popularity to the general customers. Without such information, it is hard to agree with the author’s claim which functions as the premise to other assumptions and contentions the author tries to convey.
The second key flaw is around the assumption that the deciding factor on the motorcycle purchase lies in the exceptionally loud noise feature. There is no evidence that such claim is true unless there is any supporting survey result from the customers. In addition, even if there is any supporting survey result, if the survey participants only fall into the Motorcycle X’s loyal customers, such result will not be as convincing unless the sample constitutes majority of the general customer population.
The third key flaw is around the last sentence mentioning about the television advertisements for motorcycle X. The author mentioning about the TV ads only damages his contention that the exceptionally loud noise is the key factor in motorcycle purchases because what we can infer from the TV ads is that at least from the company’s viewpoint the loud noise isn’t the purchasing factor. Since the Motorcycle X is the one making profits from its sales, there is no reason that they wouldn’t advertise the loud noise feature.
In sum, the author failed to convince me that the foreign company failed to attract customers and the differentiator between Motorcycle X’s products and other’s is the exceptionally loud noise. While on the surface this argument may sound logical, it lacked a great deal of information that is integral to identifying the validity of an argument. In order to convince people to buy in to one’s idea, he/she should be wary of the missing pieces in evaluating his/her assumptions.
Moderators:
188 posts
