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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
05 Oct 2020, 23:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey, I would be grateful if someone could rate my AWA and suggest some improvement pointers.
Pls note that i wrote it in 30 mins. Thank you
“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 the 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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.” Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument..
ESSAY-
The argument claims that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. This conclusion is based on two premises- the first being a product portfolio comparison of a 1960s organic store that began with selling fruits, vegetables and flours and now sells high butterfat cheeses. The second premise is a revenue comparison between an old vegetarian cafe and a new red meat cafe. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
The argument readily assumes product diversification, as in the first premise, and revenue difference, as in the second premise, to be proofs that people have stopped being concerned about regulating their intake. The author fails to mention any other factor that could have yielded similar results.
For example, the organic cafe could have diversified their product portfolio in order to increase its revenue or to attract a larger customer base. Its move could also be a strategy to gain an advantage over its competitors. Similarly, Good Earth Cafe might not be making as much revenue as House of Beef due to poor quality of food or service. It might also be due to high expenses by Good Earth cafe, resulting in a lower profit margin.
The argument could have been much clearer had it taken a wider sample size in consideration since the nature of the conclusion is highly generalized. It is a statistical fallacy to consider only one and two cafes for cheese and red meat categories respectively and impose the results obtained to the entire population.
Therefore, without the above-mentioned information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
Pls note that i wrote it in 30 mins. Thank you
“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 the 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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.” Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument..
ESSAY-
The argument claims that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. This conclusion is based on two premises- the first being a product portfolio comparison of a 1960s organic store that began with selling fruits, vegetables and flours and now sells high butterfat cheeses. The second premise is a revenue comparison between an old vegetarian cafe and a new red meat cafe. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
The argument readily assumes product diversification, as in the first premise, and revenue difference, as in the second premise, to be proofs that people have stopped being concerned about regulating their intake. The author fails to mention any other factor that could have yielded similar results.
For example, the organic cafe could have diversified their product portfolio in order to increase its revenue or to attract a larger customer base. Its move could also be a strategy to gain an advantage over its competitors. Similarly, Good Earth Cafe might not be making as much revenue as House of Beef due to poor quality of food or service. It might also be due to high expenses by Good Earth cafe, resulting in a lower profit margin.
The argument could have been much clearer had it taken a wider sample size in consideration since the nature of the conclusion is highly generalized. It is a statistical fallacy to consider only one and two cafes for cheese and red meat categories respectively and impose the results obtained to the entire population.
Therefore, without the above-mentioned information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
Moderators:
188 posts
