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 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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.
29 Jul 2020, 18:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone,
this is my AWA and I would like to know where to improve in my argument.
The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:
“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”
In this argument, the author asserts that department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during next decade and that department stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites statistics showing that on average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. The author furthermore bolsters his conclusion with evidence that the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade.
At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion is probably misleading due to several critical logic flaws.
In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic.
Firstly, the author makes the conclusion based on different proportions.
Namely, the author provides no information to compare two different percentages.
For instance, let’s assume that the number of both middle-aged consumers and younger consumers is 100. In that case, the author’s claim is strengthened because there is 39 middle-aged consumers and 25 younger consumers. However, the author’s claim is weakened, if there is 100 middle-aged consumers and 1000 younger consumers. Therefore to make the conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should provide additional information on this statistics.
Secondly, the author makes a dubious assumption that retail expenditure changes as people age.
In other words, the author assumes that at this moment, even though only small proportion of younger consumers spend retail expenditure to department stores, but the expenditure will increase as the younger gets older.
However, this assumption is not properly buttressed by adequate justification. For example, there is possibility that most of people’s retail expenditure is decided during youth so it is likely that the retail expenditure of younger consumers remain unchanged even though they become middle-aged consumers. To strengthen this assumption, the author should include further evidence on retail expenditure changes with chronological age change.
To sum up, the author fails to provide suitable explanation for this argument.
The absence of essential information on replacing products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer and on retail sales expectation to increase sharply within the next decade results in an unsound conclusion.
Therefore, to make this conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
Thank you very much for reading this, and Thank you again to evaluate this humble argument !
Bisous
this is my AWA and I would like to know where to improve in my argument.
The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:
“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”
In this argument, the author asserts that department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during next decade and that department stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites statistics showing that on average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. The author furthermore bolsters his conclusion with evidence that the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade.
At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion is probably misleading due to several critical logic flaws.
In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic.
Firstly, the author makes the conclusion based on different proportions.
Namely, the author provides no information to compare two different percentages.
For instance, let’s assume that the number of both middle-aged consumers and younger consumers is 100. In that case, the author’s claim is strengthened because there is 39 middle-aged consumers and 25 younger consumers. However, the author’s claim is weakened, if there is 100 middle-aged consumers and 1000 younger consumers. Therefore to make the conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should provide additional information on this statistics.
Secondly, the author makes a dubious assumption that retail expenditure changes as people age.
In other words, the author assumes that at this moment, even though only small proportion of younger consumers spend retail expenditure to department stores, but the expenditure will increase as the younger gets older.
However, this assumption is not properly buttressed by adequate justification. For example, there is possibility that most of people’s retail expenditure is decided during youth so it is likely that the retail expenditure of younger consumers remain unchanged even though they become middle-aged consumers. To strengthen this assumption, the author should include further evidence on retail expenditure changes with chronological age change.
To sum up, the author fails to provide suitable explanation for this argument.
The absence of essential information on replacing products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer and on retail sales expectation to increase sharply within the next decade results in an unsound conclusion.
Therefore, to make this conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
Thank you very much for reading this, and Thank you again to evaluate this humble argument !
Bisous
05 Mar 2021, 23:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi All, please rate my awa
The argument claims that department stores can expect an increase in retail sales in the next decade because of the shifting consumer demography towards middle aged shoppers. The argument further gives a bold recommendation that in order to take advantage of this shift, department stores should change the product portfolio to appeal to middle aged consumers than young generation. Both the claim and the recommendation are based on the 2 central premises:
a. Middle aged consumers spend 39% of their retail expenditure budgets on department stores and services while the young consumers spend a only about 25%.
b. Population of middle-aged shoppers is expected to increase drastically in the next decade.
The argument reveals various examples of leap of faith, unsupported claims and poor reasoning. For example, the argument does not mention about the absolute retail expenditure budget that each consumer segment is spending. It also fails to consider that the expected rise in the middle age segment could be attributed to the ageing current young generation. Furthermore, the argument assumes that spending behavior of young consumers will immediately change as soon as they become “middle- aged”. Finally, the author attributes the increase in sales to be solely a function of product portfolio available at the store. It fails to account for the cost associated with changing the products and other factors like store ambiance, store location and payment systems that could contribute towards attracting consumers to the store and in turn result in large basket purchases.
Firstly, the argument claims that young generation spend only 25% of retail expenditure as compared to middle aged consumers who spend about 39%. While the above claim could be true, it is quite possible that the absolute retail expenditure budget for both the generation can significantly. For instance, middle aged generation generally have a family and house mortgage to manage along with the regular retail expenditure. The young consumers generally do not have such expenses to worry about. This difference in lifestyles can significantly affect the budget the allocate for individual retail expenditure.
Secondly, the argument claims that there is an expected increase in number of middle-aged people in the next decade but fails to take into consideration the possibility that this increase could be the result of the current borderline young generation growing older in the coming years. Let’s say the demarcation for middle aged consumer is around 29 years, so the current young generation in the age category from 26 years to 28 years will be counted as a middle age consumer in the coming 3 years. This consideration brings out an important flaw in the assumption the argument makes – young consumers will exhibit a buying behavior exactly similar to current middle aged buyers as soon as they cross the age barrier. This is an exaggerated assumption as it is absurd to assume a sudden change in preference in a short time span.
Finally, the argument concludes that the rise in sale can be realized if the retailers change the product portfolio to suit the middle age consumers. The argument has attributed the rise in sales to only one factor – available product portfolio at department stores. However, it is quite possible that there are other factors – store location, store ambiance, payment system and credit periods- that can have a role in attracting consumer to retail shops. It is also assumed that the cost associated with completely changing the product portfolio will be less than the rise in respective sales (if any). A careful assessment on all the costs related to the change in products – including costs for training the employees, new store layouts, costs of sourcing and signing new contracts- should be done and compared to the expected increase in sales to make a conclusive statement.
In conclusion, the argument should do a thorough reassessment of the assumptions, provide more evidence for the claims and consider all the possibilities that can impact the conclusion. Without this analysis and information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Thanks in advance.
The argument claims that department stores can expect an increase in retail sales in the next decade because of the shifting consumer demography towards middle aged shoppers. The argument further gives a bold recommendation that in order to take advantage of this shift, department stores should change the product portfolio to appeal to middle aged consumers than young generation. Both the claim and the recommendation are based on the 2 central premises:
a. Middle aged consumers spend 39% of their retail expenditure budgets on department stores and services while the young consumers spend a only about 25%.
b. Population of middle-aged shoppers is expected to increase drastically in the next decade.
The argument reveals various examples of leap of faith, unsupported claims and poor reasoning. For example, the argument does not mention about the absolute retail expenditure budget that each consumer segment is spending. It also fails to consider that the expected rise in the middle age segment could be attributed to the ageing current young generation. Furthermore, the argument assumes that spending behavior of young consumers will immediately change as soon as they become “middle- aged”. Finally, the author attributes the increase in sales to be solely a function of product portfolio available at the store. It fails to account for the cost associated with changing the products and other factors like store ambiance, store location and payment systems that could contribute towards attracting consumers to the store and in turn result in large basket purchases.
Firstly, the argument claims that young generation spend only 25% of retail expenditure as compared to middle aged consumers who spend about 39%. While the above claim could be true, it is quite possible that the absolute retail expenditure budget for both the generation can significantly. For instance, middle aged generation generally have a family and house mortgage to manage along with the regular retail expenditure. The young consumers generally do not have such expenses to worry about. This difference in lifestyles can significantly affect the budget the allocate for individual retail expenditure.
Secondly, the argument claims that there is an expected increase in number of middle-aged people in the next decade but fails to take into consideration the possibility that this increase could be the result of the current borderline young generation growing older in the coming years. Let’s say the demarcation for middle aged consumer is around 29 years, so the current young generation in the age category from 26 years to 28 years will be counted as a middle age consumer in the coming 3 years. This consideration brings out an important flaw in the assumption the argument makes – young consumers will exhibit a buying behavior exactly similar to current middle aged buyers as soon as they cross the age barrier. This is an exaggerated assumption as it is absurd to assume a sudden change in preference in a short time span.
Finally, the argument concludes that the rise in sale can be realized if the retailers change the product portfolio to suit the middle age consumers. The argument has attributed the rise in sales to only one factor – available product portfolio at department stores. However, it is quite possible that there are other factors – store location, store ambiance, payment system and credit periods- that can have a role in attracting consumer to retail shops. It is also assumed that the cost associated with completely changing the product portfolio will be less than the rise in respective sales (if any). A careful assessment on all the costs related to the change in products – including costs for training the employees, new store layouts, costs of sourcing and signing new contracts- should be done and compared to the expected increase in sales to make a conclusive statement.
In conclusion, the argument should do a thorough reassessment of the assumptions, provide more evidence for the claims and consider all the possibilities that can impact the conclusion. Without this analysis and information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Thanks in advance.
06 Mar 2021, 00:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
bb
I've used this https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html and if you follow this religiously it helps
I've used this https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html and if you follow this religiously it helps
