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
11 Jun 2016, 00:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Essay prompt:
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track.”
Essay:
The argument presented by business section of the local newspaper claims that the company which is selling copies of motorcycle X is failing to attract the Motorcycle X customers for reasons other than the loud noise which the motorcycle makes. It uses the fact that foreign car tend to be quieter than American-made cars and the fact that Motorcycle X does not advertise the loud noise on television ads as evidence that the conclusion is valid. The argument misrepresents the evidence to provide a distorted view of the situation. It further makes use of unstated assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. It also ignores certain key factors based on which the argument could have been better evaluated. Therefore the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument ignores the fact that only "some" people are saying that the reason the foreign company has not been able to attract sales is that the foreign version of the motorcycle is not as loud. Nowhere does it say that this is the only or the majority view held by the public. It is quite possible that this is one of the several reasons why the customers still prefer the American version of motorcycle X over its foreign counterpart.
Secondly, the argument wrongly uses the comparion of the foriegn made cars with american cars to potray the fact the loud noises cannot be an issue. It ignores the fact that people who buy motorcycles often have very different priorities than people who buy cars, and hence it is very much feasible that a person buying a car prefers a quieter car, but a person buying a motorcycle wants a loud motocycle.
Thirdly, the argument uses as evidence the fact that advetisements for the Motorcycle X do not emphasize the fact the that Motorcycle X is loud for concluding that this might not be its best feature. It ignores that fact that what the public may actually like about the product may not be what is being advertised for various reason. The noisiness of the motorcycle may be liked by the public for various other reasons that have nothing to do with the motorcycle itself.
Finally, the whole arguement could be strengthened if some kind of survey was undertaken amongst the existing customers of Motorcycle X to understand what it is about that particular product which makes them pay more for it. Also understanding the fact that why the company doesnt emphasize on the loud noise of the Motorcycle in its ads may lead us to better conclude the possible reasons why people prefer it more than the foreign brand.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide clear evidence as to why some other explanation must exist. It can be better explained if some of the assumptions are more explicitly stated or some evaluation of key factors is done. As such the argument in its present form is completely unconvincing and needs further explanation before it is substantiated.
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track.”
Essay:
The argument presented by business section of the local newspaper claims that the company which is selling copies of motorcycle X is failing to attract the Motorcycle X customers for reasons other than the loud noise which the motorcycle makes. It uses the fact that foreign car tend to be quieter than American-made cars and the fact that Motorcycle X does not advertise the loud noise on television ads as evidence that the conclusion is valid. The argument misrepresents the evidence to provide a distorted view of the situation. It further makes use of unstated assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. It also ignores certain key factors based on which the argument could have been better evaluated. Therefore the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument ignores the fact that only "some" people are saying that the reason the foreign company has not been able to attract sales is that the foreign version of the motorcycle is not as loud. Nowhere does it say that this is the only or the majority view held by the public. It is quite possible that this is one of the several reasons why the customers still prefer the American version of motorcycle X over its foreign counterpart.
Secondly, the argument wrongly uses the comparion of the foriegn made cars with american cars to potray the fact the loud noises cannot be an issue. It ignores the fact that people who buy motorcycles often have very different priorities than people who buy cars, and hence it is very much feasible that a person buying a car prefers a quieter car, but a person buying a motorcycle wants a loud motocycle.
Thirdly, the argument uses as evidence the fact that advetisements for the Motorcycle X do not emphasize the fact the that Motorcycle X is loud for concluding that this might not be its best feature. It ignores that fact that what the public may actually like about the product may not be what is being advertised for various reason. The noisiness of the motorcycle may be liked by the public for various other reasons that have nothing to do with the motorcycle itself.
Finally, the whole arguement could be strengthened if some kind of survey was undertaken amongst the existing customers of Motorcycle X to understand what it is about that particular product which makes them pay more for it. Also understanding the fact that why the company doesnt emphasize on the loud noise of the Motorcycle in its ads may lead us to better conclude the possible reasons why people prefer it more than the foreign brand.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide clear evidence as to why some other explanation must exist. It can be better explained if some of the assumptions are more explicitly stated or some evaluation of key factors is done. As such the argument in its present form is completely unconvincing and needs further explanation before it is substantiated.
Moderators:
188 posts
