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 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 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.
26 Apr 2014, 20:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
"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."
The argument claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.This argument doesnt consider the complete picture of causes and effect and assumes few causes to be the sole cause of effect that people are not concerned as they were before . Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the store "Walk into the HEart's delight" expanded its market base from organic fruits and vegetables to chesses made with high butter fat because more people now are buying these high fat cheeses than before. So the argument assumes that this is one of the causes for the effect that people are not regulating their intake of food as they were earlier. This assumption is weak as it doesn't consider various other factors (causes) for people to be interested in the high fatty foods. Recent health articles published suggest that fatty cheeses are good source of calcium and vitamin D required for maintaining healthy bones. People of a decade might not be as aware as of people today are about the benifits of fatty cheeses and so people a decade earlier regulated their cheese intake by assuming that fatty cheeses are not healthy. This argument doesnt consider that people now are more well aware and more concerned about their health and adding these fatty cheeses to their diet.
Secondly, the argument assumes that "walk into the hearts delight" store added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store. This assumption didnt consider that store might wanted to expand its market base to departments other than organic fruits & vegetables inorder to generate more revenues and more profits.
Third, the argument mentions that owners of "Good earth cafe", a vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living while owners of "new house beef" became millionaires. This argument doesnt explain whether the "new house beef" serves organic food or vegetarian food that is a healtheir option than the vegeterian food served at "good earth cafe'. The quality of food is not compared at both the restaurants. The argument just assumes that "new house beef" became popular for its red meat served. Also, this argument doesnt compare the taste of food at both restaurants. If the taste of food at "good earth cafe" declined and taste at "new house beef" is exceptional, obviously the "new house beef" will have a greater demand and every chance for the owners to become millionaires.
In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had clearly mentioned all the relevant factors for the effects of store carrying fatty cheeses or consider all relevant reasons for some restaurants to become profitable while some remain the same.
The argument claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.This argument doesnt consider the complete picture of causes and effect and assumes few causes to be the sole cause of effect that people are not concerned as they were before . Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the store "Walk into the HEart's delight" expanded its market base from organic fruits and vegetables to chesses made with high butter fat because more people now are buying these high fat cheeses than before. So the argument assumes that this is one of the causes for the effect that people are not regulating their intake of food as they were earlier. This assumption is weak as it doesn't consider various other factors (causes) for people to be interested in the high fatty foods. Recent health articles published suggest that fatty cheeses are good source of calcium and vitamin D required for maintaining healthy bones. People of a decade might not be as aware as of people today are about the benifits of fatty cheeses and so people a decade earlier regulated their cheese intake by assuming that fatty cheeses are not healthy. This argument doesnt consider that people now are more well aware and more concerned about their health and adding these fatty cheeses to their diet.
Secondly, the argument assumes that "walk into the hearts delight" store added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store. This assumption didnt consider that store might wanted to expand its market base to departments other than organic fruits & vegetables inorder to generate more revenues and more profits.
Third, the argument mentions that owners of "Good earth cafe", a vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living while owners of "new house beef" became millionaires. This argument doesnt explain whether the "new house beef" serves organic food or vegetarian food that is a healtheir option than the vegeterian food served at "good earth cafe'. The quality of food is not compared at both the restaurants. The argument just assumes that "new house beef" became popular for its red meat served. Also, this argument doesnt compare the taste of food at both restaurants. If the taste of food at "good earth cafe" declined and taste at "new house beef" is exceptional, obviously the "new house beef" will have a greater demand and every chance for the owners to become millionaires.
In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had clearly mentioned all the relevant factors for the effects of store carrying fatty cheeses or consider all relevant reasons for some restaurants to become profitable while some remain the same.
27 Apr 2014, 20:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.This argument doesnt consider the complete picture of causes and effect and assumes few causes to be the sole cause of effect that people are not concerned as they were before . Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
Doesn't is a contraction that is used more in speech than text. When writing, 'does not' sounds more forceful and formal. Don't forget the apostrophe when using contractions also
Cause and effect, or causes and effects - parallelism.
You are on the right track with the argument here so far. It doesn't consider the broader causes and effects. It's weakness is that it uses isolated cases in an attempt to prove a broader trend - a fallacy you come across every day. "Oh, my friends friend saw that movie and said it was awful, therefore the movie is awful".
First, the argument readily assumes that the store "Walk into the HEart's delight" expanded its market base from organic fruits and vegetables to chesses made with high butter fat because more people now are buying these high fat cheeses than before. So the argument assumes that this is one of the causes for the effect that people are not regulating their intake of food as they were earlier. This assumption is weak as it doesn't consider various other factors (causes) for people to be interested in the high fatty foods. Recent health articles published suggest that fatty cheeses are good source of calcium and vitamin D required for maintaining healthy bones. People of a decade might not be as aware as of people today are about the benifits of fatty cheeses and so people a decade earlier regulated their cheese intake by assuming that fatty cheeses are not healthy. This argument doesnt consider that people now are more well aware and more concerned about their health and adding these fatty cheeses to their diet.
You are introducing your own data here - 'recent health articles...' this would be fine in a real essay, where you can reference this data and it would be expected that you should do external research. However, within the AWA this is outside the scope of what you need to do. Avoid these 'real world' references - the GMAT doesn't like them in general, that is why they are trick answers in CR questions. Raise examples such as this as possibilities, explaining why they would weaken/strengthen the argument, or why they prove that your analysis of the argument is valid, rather than as absolutes.
Secondly, the argument assumes that "walk into the hearts delight" store added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store. This assumption didnt consider that store might wanted to expand its market base to departments other than organic fruits & vegetables inorder to generate more revenues and more profits.
added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store - I don't think the argument assumes this. I think the argument links the stocking of these cheeses as evidence that people are note as concerned about eating fatty cheeses, but mentions nothing about the store having to stock them to ensure ongoing viability of the business - that was your assumption.
Third, the argument mentions that owners of "Good earth cafe", a vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living while owners of "new house beef" became millionaires. This argument doesnt explain whether the "new house beef" serves organic food or vegetarian food that is a healtheir option than the vegeterian food served at "good earth cafe'. The quality of food is not compared at both the restaurants. The argument just assumes that "new house beef" became popular for its red meat served. Also, this argument doesnt compare the taste of food at both restaurants. If the taste of food at "good earth cafe" declined and taste at "new house beef" is exceptional, obviously the "new house beef" will have a greater demand and every chance for the owners to become millionaires.
In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had clearly mentioned all the relevant factors for the effects of store carrying fatty cheeses or consider all relevant reasons for some restaurants to become profitable while some remain the same.
A few grammatical issues in there, particularly with parallelism - an area you will need to review for SC questions anyway. However it is still readable. I think you are around the 3-3.5 range at the moment - but I am no expert on the rating, I am just giving you feedback as a person who is studying for the same test and sharing the things that I have learnt.
A bit of study focussing on strengthen/weaken and assumption questions on CR will also have crossover benefits to the AWA. Kill two birds with one stone.
In your conclusion, you want to be succinct, and clear about the exact reason why the argument fails or lacks persuasion - don't just fall back on - "it is not complete because of the points above - that is not a summary".
Good luck with your study - I think as you get better at CR/SC questions from other study, your AWA will improve and you will easily get the 4-5 range. FYI - my first MGMAT Cat was 580, and that was after 6 weeks of doing math refreshers. I got a 690 the other day and I feel 720 is within my reach. It has taken 4 months of hard study 15 hours a week on average to get there though. If you plug away at it, you will get there.
Doesn't is a contraction that is used more in speech than text. When writing, 'does not' sounds more forceful and formal. Don't forget the apostrophe when using contractions also
Cause and effect, or causes and effects - parallelism.
You are on the right track with the argument here so far. It doesn't consider the broader causes and effects. It's weakness is that it uses isolated cases in an attempt to prove a broader trend - a fallacy you come across every day. "Oh, my friends friend saw that movie and said it was awful, therefore the movie is awful".
First, the argument readily assumes that the store "Walk into the HEart's delight" expanded its market base from organic fruits and vegetables to chesses made with high butter fat because more people now are buying these high fat cheeses than before. So the argument assumes that this is one of the causes for the effect that people are not regulating their intake of food as they were earlier. This assumption is weak as it doesn't consider various other factors (causes) for people to be interested in the high fatty foods. Recent health articles published suggest that fatty cheeses are good source of calcium and vitamin D required for maintaining healthy bones. People of a decade might not be as aware as of people today are about the benifits of fatty cheeses and so people a decade earlier regulated their cheese intake by assuming that fatty cheeses are not healthy. This argument doesnt consider that people now are more well aware and more concerned about their health and adding these fatty cheeses to their diet.
You are introducing your own data here - 'recent health articles...' this would be fine in a real essay, where you can reference this data and it would be expected that you should do external research. However, within the AWA this is outside the scope of what you need to do. Avoid these 'real world' references - the GMAT doesn't like them in general, that is why they are trick answers in CR questions. Raise examples such as this as possibilities, explaining why they would weaken/strengthen the argument, or why they prove that your analysis of the argument is valid, rather than as absolutes.
Secondly, the argument assumes that "walk into the hearts delight" store added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store. This assumption didnt consider that store might wanted to expand its market base to departments other than organic fruits & vegetables inorder to generate more revenues and more profits.
added these fatty cheeses because the revenue from organic foods wasnt sufficient to maintain the store - I don't think the argument assumes this. I think the argument links the stocking of these cheeses as evidence that people are note as concerned about eating fatty cheeses, but mentions nothing about the store having to stock them to ensure ongoing viability of the business - that was your assumption.
Third, the argument mentions that owners of "Good earth cafe", a vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living while owners of "new house beef" became millionaires. This argument doesnt explain whether the "new house beef" serves organic food or vegetarian food that is a healtheir option than the vegeterian food served at "good earth cafe'. The quality of food is not compared at both the restaurants. The argument just assumes that "new house beef" became popular for its red meat served. Also, this argument doesnt compare the taste of food at both restaurants. If the taste of food at "good earth cafe" declined and taste at "new house beef" is exceptional, obviously the "new house beef" will have a greater demand and every chance for the owners to become millionaires.
In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had clearly mentioned all the relevant factors for the effects of store carrying fatty cheeses or consider all relevant reasons for some restaurants to become profitable while some remain the same.
A few grammatical issues in there, particularly with parallelism - an area you will need to review for SC questions anyway. However it is still readable. I think you are around the 3-3.5 range at the moment - but I am no expert on the rating, I am just giving you feedback as a person who is studying for the same test and sharing the things that I have learnt.
A bit of study focussing on strengthen/weaken and assumption questions on CR will also have crossover benefits to the AWA. Kill two birds with one stone.
In your conclusion, you want to be succinct, and clear about the exact reason why the argument fails or lacks persuasion - don't just fall back on - "it is not complete because of the points above - that is not a summary".
Good luck with your study - I think as you get better at CR/SC questions from other study, your AWA will improve and you will easily get the 4-5 range. FYI - my first MGMAT Cat was 580, and that was after 6 weeks of doing math refreshers. I got a 690 the other day and I feel 720 is within my reach. It has taken 4 months of hard study 15 hours a week on average to get there though. If you plug away at it, you will get there.
