GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jan 2019, 04:41

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• The winners of the GMAT game show

January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.
• Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

January 26, 2019

January 26, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

Please Rate My Essay (GMAT in 2 Weeks)

Rating:

You may select 1 option
Author Message
Intern
Joined: 12 Jan 2018
Posts: 3

Show Tags

17 Jan 2018, 06:48
"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 seeks to prove that people are less concerned than they were a decade ago about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. It relies on two main pieces of evidence, that Heart’s Delight, health conscious, organic store displays a large variety of fatty cheeses. It also asserts that the owners of Good Earth Café, a vegetarian restaurant, are less wealthy than the owners of House of Beef. Therefore, people must be less cognizant of their intake of red meat. This argument is weak, and relies on several assumptions which are unfounded and cannot stand up to critical analysis.

First of all, the fact that Heart’s Delight supplies a large selection of fatty cheeses is hardly evidence that individuals who shop there are less conscious about their intake of these cheeses. These individuals may appreciate having a wide selection, but they may enjoy these cheeses in moderation compared to the rest of their diet. We also don’t know how well this selection of cheeses sell compared to non-fatty cheeses. Simply having a large selection does not mean that these products are in high demand, or that there is wide consumption of them. It may simply indicate a fragmented market of suppliers and consumers of these cheeses, and it is necessary for Heart’s Delight to stock a small amount of many different brands to satisfy a large portion of their shoppers.

The comparison of the individual wealth of the owners of Good Earth Café and House of Beef is also highly flawed. First of all, these owners may not derive all of their wealth from these two restaurants, and each may be invested in a variety of other establishments or have inherited their wealth from their relatives. The personal wealth of these owners also is not perfect indicator of the health or profitability of their businesses, and it is certainly not an indicator of whether the population at large is concerned about their intake of red meat. Even if the author is correct in his assumption that Good Earth Café is more successful than House of Beef, it may simply be due to the fact that House of Beef has better food than Good Earth Café in each of their respective markets. For example, there may be vegetarian restaurants that are much more successful than House of Beef. We also don’t know exactly what House of Beef serves, and whether it offers any menu items that don’t contain red meat.

Finally, the largest fallacy that this argument displays is the assumption that either of these examples gives enough data to capture the behaviors and beliefs of the entire population of consumers. The cheese selection of an individual grocery store and the person wealth of the owners of two adjacent restaurants cannot possibly be a valid indicator for the beliefs of the entire population or market. The argument could have been much stronger if the author had included any population-level survey data, or even data about the fatty cheese and red meat markets and consumption per capita. Instead, the author chooses to make large leaps of logic from anecdotal data which entirely fails to prove his point.

It is clear that the argument is highly flawed, and relies on unproven assumptions. More generally, the anecdotal evidence provided cannot be used to draw any of the larger, population-wide conclusions that the author attempts to prove. Therefore, the reasoning is weak and has no legs to stand on.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2016
Posts: 283
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28

Show Tags

25 Jan 2018, 20:06
papertrail123 wrote:
"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 seeks to prove that people are less concerned than they were a decade ago about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. It relies on two main pieces of evidence, that Heart’s Delight, health conscious, organic store displays a large variety of fatty cheeses. It also asserts that the owners of Good Earth Café, a vegetarian restaurant, are less wealthy than the owners of House of Beef. Therefore, people must be less cognizant of their intake of red meat. This argument is weak, and relies on several assumptions which are unfounded and cannot stand up to critical analysis.

First of all, the fact that Heart’s Delight supplies a large selection of fatty cheeses is hardly evidence that individuals who shop there are less conscious about their intake of these cheeses. These individuals may appreciate having a wide selection, but they may enjoy these cheeses in moderation compared to the rest of their diet. We also don’t know how well this selection of cheeses sell compared to non-fatty cheeses. Simply having a large selection does not mean that these products are in high demand, or that there is wide consumption of them. It may simply indicate a fragmented market of suppliers and consumers of these cheeses, and it is necessary for Heart’s Delight to stock a small amount of many different brands to satisfy a large portion of their shoppers.

The comparison of the individual wealth of the owners of Good Earth Café and House of Beef is also highly flawed. First of all, these owners may not derive all of their wealth from these two restaurants, and each may be invested in a variety of other establishments or have inherited their wealth from their relatives. The personal wealth of these owners also is not perfect indicator of the health or profitability of their businesses, and it is certainly not an indicator of whether the population at large is concerned about their intake of red meat. Even if the author is correct in his assumption that Good Earth Café is more successful than House of Beef, it may simply be due to the fact that House of Beef has better food than Good Earth Café in each of their respective markets. For example, there may be vegetarian restaurants that are much more successful than House of Beef. We also don’t know exactly what House of Beef serves, and whether it offers any menu items that don’t contain red meat.

Finally, the largest fallacy that this argument displays is the assumption that either of these examples gives enough data to capture the behaviors and beliefs of the entire population of consumers. The cheese selection of an individual grocery store and the person wealth of the owners of two adjacent restaurants cannot possibly be a valid indicator for the beliefs of the entire population or market. The argument could have been much stronger if the author had included any population-level survey data, or even data about the fatty cheese and red meat markets and consumption per capita. Instead, the author chooses to make large leaps of logic from anecdotal data which entirely fails to prove his point.

It is clear that the argument is highly flawed, and relies on unproven assumptions. More generally, the anecdotal evidence provided cannot be used to draw any of the larger, population-wide conclusions that the author attempts to prove. Therefore, the reasoning is weak and has no legs to stand on.

Hi papertrail123

Please find below the link which contains almost all the essays related to the GMAT exam (you will find the essay posted by you as well). These essays will guarantee you a score of 5-6 in the AWA section of the GMAT Exam.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-compilations-109-analysis-of-argument-essays-86274.html
For any further queries please do get back to me. All the best for your exam preparation
_________________

_______________________________________________
If you appreciate the post then please click +1Kudos

Please Rate My Essay (GMAT in 2 Weeks) &nbs [#permalink] 25 Jan 2018, 20:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by