|
|
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 Feb 2015, 01:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Good day
This is my first post in the gmat club.
I'm a non-native english speaker and its really difficult for me to express my thoughts in 30 mins. Could you plz rate my essay and provide some feedback. tnx
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the managing director of the Exeunt Theater Company:
“Now that we have moved to a larger theater, we can expect to increase our revenues from ticket sales. To further increase
profits, we should start producing the plays that have been most successful when they were performed in our nation’s
largest cities. In addition, we should hire the Adlib Theater Company’s director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions
to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that since Exeunt Theater Company has moved to a larger theater, it can expect larger revenues from ticket sales and from reproducing plays that have been previously successful in largest cities of country. In addition, the author suggests that exeunt theater should hire fund raising manager of another theater company, because the company has had good contribution since the manager has started working there. Stated in this way the argument is flawed and convincing. Also, the conclusions of the argument rely on several weak and unsupported assumptions that make the argument unconvincing.
First, the argument clearly states that in order to increase revenues, Exeunt theater should produce plays that have been previously successful in larger cities. This is a weak assumption because reproducing old plays cannot guarantee more sales and higher revenue. To illustrate, perhaps many people who regularly visit theaters have seen those older plays in other cities and don’t want to view them again, so they won’t spend money watching a repeated play. Furthermore, the taste of theater lovers changes over time and so, it is possible that only a few number of people buy tickets of old plays. If the argument had provided much more evidence that older plays would attract a large group of audience, it would be more convincing.
Second, the author suggests that Exuent theater should hire fund riasing manager of another theater company, because since she has started working there, the company has had a god contribution. This is again a weak and flawed reason. The author does not provide any correlation between work of fund-raising manager and increased performance of that company. Clearly, the contribution on a company depends upon many different factors, for instance, the plays they perform, advertising, and customer relationship. It is not all clear that what is the role of fund-raising manager in company’s good performance. On the other hand, it is possible that the fund-raising manager doesn’t accept to move to Exeent theater because of reasons such as less payment. If the author clearly provided evidence that the fund raising manager can increase the company’s performance and will accept the employment offer, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that using a larger theater, the company can expect higher revenues from ticket sales. It is not clear that the theater can attract so many customers to sell all tickets and uses all the capacity of theatre. The question is whether the company can produce enough well-known, attractive, and new plays that can sell all seats at each play. For example, it is possible that ability of the company to attract customers is limited to the previous, smaller theater. Without convincing answer to this question, the argument is not a substantiate evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all relevant factors, in this particular case, the capacity of the company to attract theater lovers. In oreder to assess the merits of a clear conclusion, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.
This is my first post in the gmat club.
I'm a non-native english speaker and its really difficult for me to express my thoughts in 30 mins. Could you plz rate my essay and provide some feedback. tnx
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the managing director of the Exeunt Theater Company:
“Now that we have moved to a larger theater, we can expect to increase our revenues from ticket sales. To further increase
profits, we should start producing the plays that have been most successful when they were performed in our nation’s
largest cities. In addition, we should hire the Adlib Theater Company’s director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions
to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that since Exeunt Theater Company has moved to a larger theater, it can expect larger revenues from ticket sales and from reproducing plays that have been previously successful in largest cities of country. In addition, the author suggests that exeunt theater should hire fund raising manager of another theater company, because the company has had good contribution since the manager has started working there. Stated in this way the argument is flawed and convincing. Also, the conclusions of the argument rely on several weak and unsupported assumptions that make the argument unconvincing.
First, the argument clearly states that in order to increase revenues, Exeunt theater should produce plays that have been previously successful in larger cities. This is a weak assumption because reproducing old plays cannot guarantee more sales and higher revenue. To illustrate, perhaps many people who regularly visit theaters have seen those older plays in other cities and don’t want to view them again, so they won’t spend money watching a repeated play. Furthermore, the taste of theater lovers changes over time and so, it is possible that only a few number of people buy tickets of old plays. If the argument had provided much more evidence that older plays would attract a large group of audience, it would be more convincing.
Second, the author suggests that Exuent theater should hire fund riasing manager of another theater company, because since she has started working there, the company has had a god contribution. This is again a weak and flawed reason. The author does not provide any correlation between work of fund-raising manager and increased performance of that company. Clearly, the contribution on a company depends upon many different factors, for instance, the plays they perform, advertising, and customer relationship. It is not all clear that what is the role of fund-raising manager in company’s good performance. On the other hand, it is possible that the fund-raising manager doesn’t accept to move to Exeent theater because of reasons such as less payment. If the author clearly provided evidence that the fund raising manager can increase the company’s performance and will accept the employment offer, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that using a larger theater, the company can expect higher revenues from ticket sales. It is not clear that the theater can attract so many customers to sell all tickets and uses all the capacity of theatre. The question is whether the company can produce enough well-known, attractive, and new plays that can sell all seats at each play. For example, it is possible that ability of the company to attract customers is limited to the previous, smaller theater. Without convincing answer to this question, the argument is not a substantiate evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all relevant factors, in this particular case, the capacity of the company to attract theater lovers. In oreder to assess the merits of a clear conclusion, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
