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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Jul 2014, 07:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument : "In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
My Response :
The argument concludes that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about the intake of fatty cheese and red meat. The author supports his decision by giving examples of three stores and the economic status of their owners.The argument is full of gaps since it presents fragmentary evidence and ignores certain crucial assumptions. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. Thus,the argument is evidently a result of a hasty generalization.
First,the argument assumes that just because the owners of House of Beef are millionaires, they must be selling good.
It fails to take into other factors that might be a cause of their wealth.They might have ventured into different arenas, which might be very profitable. Also, It might even be true that the House of Beef does not sell good at all.
Second,the argument states that Heart's delight used to sell organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's but now displays a lot of items made from cheese and butterfat. For no reason the author assumes that since the store used to sell organic fruits and vegetables in the 60's, it did the same a decade ago from now. However, this might not be the case. The store might have started selling stuff made from cheese and high butterfat as early as in the 80's. So, the conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about the intake of fatty cheese and red meat falls apart again.
Lastly, the argument assumes that since the owner of the vegetarian restaurant Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, it is not doing good business. However, the case might be that the profit margins in the vegetarian restaurant are far less than those in the Non-Vegetarian stores. Thus, we cannot conclude anything about the volume of products consumed by the people. Both the stores, Heart's delight and House of Beef might be doing equally well, rather it might be possible that Good Earth Cafe sells better than House of Beef.
The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the author has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. The evidence in support of the conclusion does little to prove the conclusion drawn by the author because it does not address the assumptions already raised. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened by making it clear that the owners of House of Beef had no other source of income other than the store itself, Heart's Delight used to sell organic products until a decade ago and Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian Industry have comparable profit margins.
My Response :
The argument concludes that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about the intake of fatty cheese and red meat. The author supports his decision by giving examples of three stores and the economic status of their owners.The argument is full of gaps since it presents fragmentary evidence and ignores certain crucial assumptions. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. Thus,the argument is evidently a result of a hasty generalization.
First,the argument assumes that just because the owners of House of Beef are millionaires, they must be selling good.
It fails to take into other factors that might be a cause of their wealth.They might have ventured into different arenas, which might be very profitable. Also, It might even be true that the House of Beef does not sell good at all.
Second,the argument states that Heart's delight used to sell organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's but now displays a lot of items made from cheese and butterfat. For no reason the author assumes that since the store used to sell organic fruits and vegetables in the 60's, it did the same a decade ago from now. However, this might not be the case. The store might have started selling stuff made from cheese and high butterfat as early as in the 80's. So, the conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about the intake of fatty cheese and red meat falls apart again.
Lastly, the argument assumes that since the owner of the vegetarian restaurant Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, it is not doing good business. However, the case might be that the profit margins in the vegetarian restaurant are far less than those in the Non-Vegetarian stores. Thus, we cannot conclude anything about the volume of products consumed by the people. Both the stores, Heart's delight and House of Beef might be doing equally well, rather it might be possible that Good Earth Cafe sells better than House of Beef.
The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the author has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. The evidence in support of the conclusion does little to prove the conclusion drawn by the author because it does not address the assumptions already raised. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened by making it clear that the owners of House of Beef had no other source of income other than the store itself, Heart's Delight used to sell organic products until a decade ago and Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian Industry have comparable profit margins.
gaurav245
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Last visit: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 27
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Schools: Schulich Sept"18 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.8
WE:Information Technology (Telecommunications)
09 Jul 2014, 12:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Any experts out there to help me out...
Need help asap...
Have my exam in a couple of days...!!
Need help asap...
Have my exam in a couple of days...!!
10 Jul 2014, 10:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
hi,
good and structured very well however i donot get much time to review at it is very long
and only point i found is you are very highly critical use a little bit sophisticated language if possible
i guess it should get over 5
good and structured very well however i donot get much time to review at it is very long
and only point i found is you are very highly critical use a little bit sophisticated language if possible
i guess it should get over 5
