|
|
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.
13 Jun 2018, 07:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello Dear GMATers!
I have just started my preparation for GMAT and I kindly request you to rate my first AWA essay. Thank you!
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper:
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
The author claims that Company A, a major videogame hardware and software producer, can be expected to fail because its games are in so many American homes and the demand is nearly exhausted. The conclusion is drawn based on the case of Company B, which was once a giant in the industry but it finally collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. There are few assumptions the author is making in her argument that require additional information to be validated. Without this additional information, this argument rests solely on assumptions and not fact.
The first key flaw with this argument is around the assumption that Company A will fail for the same reason of Company B. First, Company A can actually learn from the case of Company B and find ways to maintain its large share in the market. Second, the games produced by Company A might have features which make them last more than games produced by Company B, like for example multi-player options. The argument could have been much clearer if a detailed analysis of the market conditions was presented.
The second key flaw with this argument is around the idea that Company B collapsed only because children became bored with the line of production of Company B. There is no evidence presented that this is the only reason. One would need to answer some key question in order to draw a direct conclusion from this assumption. Were the games too expensive? Were the games targeting different children categories? Were the games produced by competitors more innovative and technically advanced? What about the output volume generated by the hardware produced by Company B? Without answering those questions, this portion of the overall argument relies completely on assumption and it is not based on any fact.
The third and last flaw in the argument is in regards to the assumptions that only the American market will be responsible for the collapse of Company A. This is misleading since Company A has a large share in the international market, not only America. The argument could have been strengthened if the author proved with numbers that Company A’s major share is in the American market and the rest of the world has only marginal importance.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Number of words: 406
I have just started my preparation for GMAT and I kindly request you to rate my first AWA essay. Thank you!
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper:
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
The author claims that Company A, a major videogame hardware and software producer, can be expected to fail because its games are in so many American homes and the demand is nearly exhausted. The conclusion is drawn based on the case of Company B, which was once a giant in the industry but it finally collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. There are few assumptions the author is making in her argument that require additional information to be validated. Without this additional information, this argument rests solely on assumptions and not fact.
The first key flaw with this argument is around the assumption that Company A will fail for the same reason of Company B. First, Company A can actually learn from the case of Company B and find ways to maintain its large share in the market. Second, the games produced by Company A might have features which make them last more than games produced by Company B, like for example multi-player options. The argument could have been much clearer if a detailed analysis of the market conditions was presented.
The second key flaw with this argument is around the idea that Company B collapsed only because children became bored with the line of production of Company B. There is no evidence presented that this is the only reason. One would need to answer some key question in order to draw a direct conclusion from this assumption. Were the games too expensive? Were the games targeting different children categories? Were the games produced by competitors more innovative and technically advanced? What about the output volume generated by the hardware produced by Company B? Without answering those questions, this portion of the overall argument relies completely on assumption and it is not based on any fact.
The third and last flaw in the argument is in regards to the assumptions that only the American market will be responsible for the collapse of Company A. This is misleading since Company A has a large share in the international market, not only America. The argument could have been strengthened if the author proved with numbers that Company A’s major share is in the American market and the rest of the world has only marginal importance.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Number of words: 406
Moderators:
188 posts
