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 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
07 Aug 2014, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A spokesman for a dairy company issued the following statement:
Many consumers buy organic milk because they are concerned about the consequences of the widespread use of recombinant growth hormone and antibiotics in the conventional diary industry. These concerns, however, are unfounded. While bovine growth hormone has been shown to produce significant developmental effects in cattle, no study have ever shown that its presence in commercial milk has had any developmental effects on human consumers. Regarding antibiotics, while it has been argued that large-scale, preemptive use of antibiotics in cattle feed can interfere with the animals' immune systems and can lead to the proliferation an antibiotic- resistant strains of bacteria, neither of these effect affect the quality of the milk produced by cattle that are fed antibiotics. Therefore, there is no reasonable justification for a consumer to ay $5 for a gallon of organic milk when a perfectly good gallon of conventional milk can be had for half the price.
Essay:
The argument claims that consumers prefer to buy organic milk as opposed to conventional milk because they are concerned about the side effects of the use of recombinant growth hormone and antibiotics on cattle. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
First, the argument readily assumes that the consumers do not buy regular milk because they are concerned with the consequences of the widespread use of hormones and antibiotics. This is a slight stretch as there could be a separate reason as to why consumers prefer regular milk. It could be because some of them are animal activists and therefore they protest the use of chemicals on farm animals. To them, this is viewed as unethical. Hence, they are not going to pay money to get something that goes against what they believe in. They would prefer to pay slightly extra in hopes of conveying a message to the producers. The argument could have been much clearer if the spokesman listed all the reasons as to why consumers prefer organic milk.
Secondly, the argument claims that the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria do not get transferred to human beings. This again is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between antibiotic-resistant bacteria and its ability to be passed on to the consumers. For example, if a consumer was unsure on whether the effect of antibiotics on the cattle’s immunity could be effect the consumers own immunity, they would play the safe card and purchase organic milk. Evidently, this is a result of lack of information. If it were really the case where the immunity of cattle could not affect the immunity of human beings, this information should be relayed to the consumers. If the argument provided evidence that consumers had this information at hand, it would prove to be a more solid argument.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no reasonable justification for a consumer to pay more for organic milk when conventional milk is just as good. The spokesman has a very limited view on this matter and hence should expand the argument and take into consideration other reasons as to why consumers make the following decision. As mentioned above, reasons such as the ethics of using drugs on cattle and the poor use of information should be taken into account. Without supporting evidence that the preference of organic milk is solely due to the concern about the consequences, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument in flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the spokesman used more evidence to demonstrate the validity of his claim. In order to assess the merits of the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors, in this particular case, the reasons to why organic milk is preferred to regular milk. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
Many consumers buy organic milk because they are concerned about the consequences of the widespread use of recombinant growth hormone and antibiotics in the conventional diary industry. These concerns, however, are unfounded. While bovine growth hormone has been shown to produce significant developmental effects in cattle, no study have ever shown that its presence in commercial milk has had any developmental effects on human consumers. Regarding antibiotics, while it has been argued that large-scale, preemptive use of antibiotics in cattle feed can interfere with the animals' immune systems and can lead to the proliferation an antibiotic- resistant strains of bacteria, neither of these effect affect the quality of the milk produced by cattle that are fed antibiotics. Therefore, there is no reasonable justification for a consumer to ay $5 for a gallon of organic milk when a perfectly good gallon of conventional milk can be had for half the price.
Essay:
The argument claims that consumers prefer to buy organic milk as opposed to conventional milk because they are concerned about the side effects of the use of recombinant growth hormone and antibiotics on cattle. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
First, the argument readily assumes that the consumers do not buy regular milk because they are concerned with the consequences of the widespread use of hormones and antibiotics. This is a slight stretch as there could be a separate reason as to why consumers prefer regular milk. It could be because some of them are animal activists and therefore they protest the use of chemicals on farm animals. To them, this is viewed as unethical. Hence, they are not going to pay money to get something that goes against what they believe in. They would prefer to pay slightly extra in hopes of conveying a message to the producers. The argument could have been much clearer if the spokesman listed all the reasons as to why consumers prefer organic milk.
Secondly, the argument claims that the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria do not get transferred to human beings. This again is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between antibiotic-resistant bacteria and its ability to be passed on to the consumers. For example, if a consumer was unsure on whether the effect of antibiotics on the cattle’s immunity could be effect the consumers own immunity, they would play the safe card and purchase organic milk. Evidently, this is a result of lack of information. If it were really the case where the immunity of cattle could not affect the immunity of human beings, this information should be relayed to the consumers. If the argument provided evidence that consumers had this information at hand, it would prove to be a more solid argument.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no reasonable justification for a consumer to pay more for organic milk when conventional milk is just as good. The spokesman has a very limited view on this matter and hence should expand the argument and take into consideration other reasons as to why consumers make the following decision. As mentioned above, reasons such as the ethics of using drugs on cattle and the poor use of information should be taken into account. Without supporting evidence that the preference of organic milk is solely due to the concern about the consequences, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument in flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the spokesman used more evidence to demonstrate the validity of his claim. In order to assess the merits of the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors, in this particular case, the reasons to why organic milk is preferred to regular milk. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
11 Aug 2014, 02:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Shahreen,
Your analysis looks great. I see that you've followed Chinese Burned's template.
I think your analysis was well structured, and you used a lot of structural words. Also, I could not locate any spelling mistakes. So it's a good 6.0 analysis in my opinion.
All the best for the rest of the sections!
Your analysis looks great. I see that you've followed Chinese Burned's template.
I think your analysis was well structured, and you used a lot of structural words. Also, I could not locate any spelling mistakes. So it's a good 6.0 analysis in my opinion.
All the best for the rest of the sections!
