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 1511:00 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. - Dec 21
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
16 Aug 2019, 12:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
PLEASE EVALUATE MY AWA ESSAY
The following appeared as part of an article reviewing summer camps for children.
Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
The argument claims that Federville Farms is the best choice one can make for the best camp experience for his children. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that in a recent survey, Fesderville farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activity. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the survey is reliable, accurate and conducted in an unbiased manner. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There is a possibility that personals or organization conducted the survey had done it clumsily. They might fail to select a proper sample size for the survey or they may fail to select appropriate factor on the basis which camp can be evaluated. There is also a possibility that personal of the survey team are biased towards Fesderville Farms and produced results, which favor Fesderville Farms. If the argument had provided evidence that the survey had been conducted in a proper and unbiased manner then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that as Fesderville Farms appoint more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state it would be much safer for children. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of guards and safety of children. It is quite possible that lifeguards appointed have all the necessary skills and training but lack experience in dealing with kids and real-life scenarios. It is also not clear from the argument about whether Fesderville Farms appointed enough lifeguards to safeguard the children. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly states the correlation between the number of lifeguards and children.
Finally, the argument claims that Fesderville Farms is safe for children to camp because it owned and operated by the family for forty years. From this statement, it is not clear whether staff members, apart from family members, have sufficient experience in dealing with camp matters. It possible that most of the staff members are fresh recruits who do not possess sufficient or any experience of how camp works, which can compromise children safety. Without any supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared as part of an article reviewing summer camps for children.
Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
The argument claims that Federville Farms is the best choice one can make for the best camp experience for his children. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that in a recent survey, Fesderville farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activity. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the survey is reliable, accurate and conducted in an unbiased manner. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There is a possibility that personals or organization conducted the survey had done it clumsily. They might fail to select a proper sample size for the survey or they may fail to select appropriate factor on the basis which camp can be evaluated. There is also a possibility that personal of the survey team are biased towards Fesderville Farms and produced results, which favor Fesderville Farms. If the argument had provided evidence that the survey had been conducted in a proper and unbiased manner then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that as Fesderville Farms appoint more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state it would be much safer for children. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of guards and safety of children. It is quite possible that lifeguards appointed have all the necessary skills and training but lack experience in dealing with kids and real-life scenarios. It is also not clear from the argument about whether Fesderville Farms appointed enough lifeguards to safeguard the children. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly states the correlation between the number of lifeguards and children.
Finally, the argument claims that Fesderville Farms is safe for children to camp because it owned and operated by the family for forty years. From this statement, it is not clear whether staff members, apart from family members, have sufficient experience in dealing with camp matters. It possible that most of the staff members are fresh recruits who do not possess sufficient or any experience of how camp works, which can compromise children safety. Without any supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
16 Aug 2019, 13:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
akijain08
PLEASE EVALUATE MY AWA ESSAY
The following appeared as part of an article reviewing summer camps for children.
Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
The argument claims that Federville Farms is the best choice one can make for the best camp experience for his children. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that in a recent survey, Fesderville farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activity. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the survey is reliable, accurate and conducted in an unbiased manner. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There is a possibility that personals or organization conducted the survey had done it clumsily. They might fail to select a proper sample size for the survey or they may fail to select appropriate factor on the basis which camp can be evaluated. There is also a possibility that personal of the survey team are biased towards Fesderville Farms and produced results, which favor Fesderville Farms. If the argument had provided evidence that the survey had been conducted in a proper and unbiased manner then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that as Fesderville Farms appoint more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state it would be much safer for children. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of guards and safety of children. It is quite possible that lifeguards appointed have all the necessary skills and training but lack experience in dealing with kids and real-life scenarios. It is also not clear from the argument about whether Fesderville Farms appointed enough lifeguards to safeguard the children. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly states the correlation between the number of lifeguards and children.
Finally, the argument claims that Fesderville Farms is safe for children to camp because it owned and operated by the family for forty years. From this statement, it is not clear whether staff members, apart from family members, have sufficient experience in dealing with camp matters. It possible that most of the staff members are fresh recruits who do not possess sufficient or any experience of how camp works, which can compromise children safety. Without any supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared as part of an article reviewing summer camps for children.
Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
The argument claims that Federville Farms is the best choice one can make for the best camp experience for his children. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that in a recent survey, Fesderville farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activity. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the survey is reliable, accurate and conducted in an unbiased manner. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There is a possibility that personals or organization conducted the survey had done it clumsily. They might fail to select a proper sample size for the survey or they may fail to select appropriate factor on the basis which camp can be evaluated. There is also a possibility that personal of the survey team are biased towards Fesderville Farms and produced results, which favor Fesderville Farms. If the argument had provided evidence that the survey had been conducted in a proper and unbiased manner then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Second, the argument claims that as Fesderville Farms appoint more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state it would be much safer for children. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of guards and safety of children. It is quite possible that lifeguards appointed have all the necessary skills and training but lack experience in dealing with kids and real-life scenarios. It is also not clear from the argument about whether Fesderville Farms appointed enough lifeguards to safeguard the children. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly states the correlation between the number of lifeguards and children.
Finally, the argument claims that Fesderville Farms is safe for children to camp because it owned and operated by the family for forty years. From this statement, it is not clear whether staff members, apart from family members, have sufficient experience in dealing with camp matters. It possible that most of the staff members are fresh recruits who do not possess sufficient or any experience of how camp works, which can compromise children safety. Without any supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I am not an expert, but can tell that although you have checked all boxes, just left few points.
in 3rd evaluation your strengthen point / line is not that convincing or good . You have not provided any solution to that problem : without any evidence .......
Rest are just grammatical mistakes
No correct reference to they and use of which is not correct, should precede with , : They might fail to select a proper sample size for the survey or they may fail to select appropriate factor on the basis which camp can be evaluated
because it owned : it is owned.
in final conclusion you can add some 1 more point to overall strengthen the conclusion rather than writing, all mentioned point, Just an inference of all your conclusions can work here.
Moderators:
