|
|
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.
26 Aug 2011, 05:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Following is my essay on Argument on Analysis. Can someone please review and reply the feedback and rating.
-----------------------------------
DKLA was the innovator in the market for casual women's business apparel. Smith & Co. was once the leader in that market with $2 billion in sales until styles changed and Smith & Co.'s clothes went out of fashion. DKLA can also be expected to fail, especially because the market for casual women's business apparel is saturated.
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author asserts that DKLA, innovator in the market for casual women’s business apparel, will fail as did Smith & Co because the market for casual women’s business apparel is overflowing. The author assumes that DKLA’s clothing will run out of fashion due to saturation of women’s business apparel in the market. In my opinion the author’s reasoning is flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the author correlates DKLA with Smith & Co and assumes that DKLA like Smith & Co will fail because of change in style. However, the author does not provide any evidence of its correlation such as is the line of clothing of DKLA the same as that of Smith & Co. There is a possibility that Smith & Co was leader in different clothing line such as for kids or may be for Men’s. Hence, the author’s assumption does not justify his claim.
Secondly, the author assumes that because of saturation in women’s business apparel in the market, DKLA will fail. I would like to emphasis that DKLA was the trendsetter of women’s business apparel in the market and there is a possibility that he would part of bringing the style change in the market. Therefore the author fails to justify his claim,
Additionally, even if there is saturation is women’s business apparel, it is possible that DKLA not only makes women’s business apparels but also apparels for men and kids. Hence, the author claim stands flawed.
In sum, the author’s claim is flawed and unconvincing. To make his claim strong, the should address the correlation between DKLA and Smith & Co, should mention whether DKLA’s only business is women’s business apparel or does business in other verticals, and lastly, should mention why would change in style affect DKLA.
-----------------------------------
Thanks,
Kishore
Following is my essay on Argument on Analysis. Can someone please review and reply the feedback and rating.
-----------------------------------
DKLA was the innovator in the market for casual women's business apparel. Smith & Co. was once the leader in that market with $2 billion in sales until styles changed and Smith & Co.'s clothes went out of fashion. DKLA can also be expected to fail, especially because the market for casual women's business apparel is saturated.
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author asserts that DKLA, innovator in the market for casual women’s business apparel, will fail as did Smith & Co because the market for casual women’s business apparel is overflowing. The author assumes that DKLA’s clothing will run out of fashion due to saturation of women’s business apparel in the market. In my opinion the author’s reasoning is flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the author correlates DKLA with Smith & Co and assumes that DKLA like Smith & Co will fail because of change in style. However, the author does not provide any evidence of its correlation such as is the line of clothing of DKLA the same as that of Smith & Co. There is a possibility that Smith & Co was leader in different clothing line such as for kids or may be for Men’s. Hence, the author’s assumption does not justify his claim.
Secondly, the author assumes that because of saturation in women’s business apparel in the market, DKLA will fail. I would like to emphasis that DKLA was the trendsetter of women’s business apparel in the market and there is a possibility that he would part of bringing the style change in the market. Therefore the author fails to justify his claim,
Additionally, even if there is saturation is women’s business apparel, it is possible that DKLA not only makes women’s business apparels but also apparels for men and kids. Hence, the author claim stands flawed.
In sum, the author’s claim is flawed and unconvincing. To make his claim strong, the should address the correlation between DKLA and Smith & Co, should mention whether DKLA’s only business is women’s business apparel or does business in other verticals, and lastly, should mention why would change in style affect DKLA.
-----------------------------------
Thanks,
Kishore
Moderators:
188 posts
