|
|
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.
Lukas83
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Last visit: 16 Apr 2018
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Lithuania
Schools: Cambridge"19
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.4
07 Jan 2018, 01:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
please help me understand how to improve my AWA writing skills. My first impression is that due to the lack of time I was not able to give a proper consideration to vocabulary.
Thanks!
The following appeared in an article in a consumer-products magazine:
“Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, Acid- Ease and Pepticaid, are now available in milder nonprescription forms. Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that people in need of an effective nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should rely on Acid-Ease because doctors more often prescribe full strength Acid-Ease than Pepticaid. This argument is seriously flawed as it readily assumes that the number of prescriptions is a proof that one medication is better than the other. Even if that were true for the prescription versions of the drugs, that would not necessarily be the case for the milder versions of the medications.
Firstly, the number of prescriptions should not be considered as a proof that one medication is better than the other. There are numerous reasons which could explain the difference. For instance, the marketing efforts by the makers of Acid-Ease might be more convincing and more efficiently targeted towards the doctors. Additionally, motivational schemes for the doctors to prescribe Acid-Ease to the patients could be working better than the ones for Pepticaid. Insurance policies may also have an effect, if for instance Acid-Ease is cheaper than Pepticaid and has a similar rate of success. One have to admit, that one of the reasons for this discrepancy might be the fact that Acid-Ease is a more effective medication than Pepticiad; however the plethora of possible reasons for the variation in number of prescriptions does not allow using the prescription statistics as a reliable proxy for the effectiveness of the medications.
Furthermore, even if we would assume that the prescription numbers allow as to make a conclusion on which of the prescription version of the medication is superior, there is no proof that the same must be true for the milder versions of the drugs. It is not clear from the passage if the drugs have the same formulas, but lower concentrations, or these are other formulas simply utilising the established brand names. If it is the first case, than increasing the dosage of the milder medication should get you the similar effect as the prescription one. Alternatively, if the formulas for the drugs are different and only the brands are the same than there is no clear direct connection between the effectiveness of the prescription and nonprescription versions of the medications.
Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more wishful thinking than based on substantial evidence. The argument would be much more plausible if the author would establish a clear link between number of prescriptions and the actual effectiveness of the medications, e.g. relying on the scientific research data for both of the drugs. The author should also have to prove the direct connection between the way the prescription and non prescription versions of brands of medication work.
In conclusion, the argument is seriously flawed. The evidence provided does not allow it firmly stand on its own legs. In order to strengthen the argument, the author should find evidence which would support a definite conclusion, but not just one potential line of reasoning.
please help me understand how to improve my AWA writing skills. My first impression is that due to the lack of time I was not able to give a proper consideration to vocabulary.
Thanks!
The following appeared in an article in a consumer-products magazine:
“Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, Acid- Ease and Pepticaid, are now available in milder nonprescription forms. Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that people in need of an effective nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should rely on Acid-Ease because doctors more often prescribe full strength Acid-Ease than Pepticaid. This argument is seriously flawed as it readily assumes that the number of prescriptions is a proof that one medication is better than the other. Even if that were true for the prescription versions of the drugs, that would not necessarily be the case for the milder versions of the medications.
Firstly, the number of prescriptions should not be considered as a proof that one medication is better than the other. There are numerous reasons which could explain the difference. For instance, the marketing efforts by the makers of Acid-Ease might be more convincing and more efficiently targeted towards the doctors. Additionally, motivational schemes for the doctors to prescribe Acid-Ease to the patients could be working better than the ones for Pepticaid. Insurance policies may also have an effect, if for instance Acid-Ease is cheaper than Pepticaid and has a similar rate of success. One have to admit, that one of the reasons for this discrepancy might be the fact that Acid-Ease is a more effective medication than Pepticiad; however the plethora of possible reasons for the variation in number of prescriptions does not allow using the prescription statistics as a reliable proxy for the effectiveness of the medications.
Furthermore, even if we would assume that the prescription numbers allow as to make a conclusion on which of the prescription version of the medication is superior, there is no proof that the same must be true for the milder versions of the drugs. It is not clear from the passage if the drugs have the same formulas, but lower concentrations, or these are other formulas simply utilising the established brand names. If it is the first case, than increasing the dosage of the milder medication should get you the similar effect as the prescription one. Alternatively, if the formulas for the drugs are different and only the brands are the same than there is no clear direct connection between the effectiveness of the prescription and nonprescription versions of the medications.
Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more wishful thinking than based on substantial evidence. The argument would be much more plausible if the author would establish a clear link between number of prescriptions and the actual effectiveness of the medications, e.g. relying on the scientific research data for both of the drugs. The author should also have to prove the direct connection between the way the prescription and non prescription versions of brands of medication work.
In conclusion, the argument is seriously flawed. The evidence provided does not allow it firmly stand on its own legs. In order to strengthen the argument, the author should find evidence which would support a definite conclusion, but not just one potential line of reasoning.
Moderators:
188 posts
