|
|
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.
29 Feb 2016, 09:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello, I would like to kindly ask you guys if it is possible to rate / correct my second AWA. Thank you so much in advance! This question was found in the Princeton Review Cracking the GMAT 2016 online Test.
Argument:
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Answer:
The argument claims that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions over time and generally assumes, that it will be more costly to people to buy new expensive eyeglasses than to invest in eye-strengthening programs. Stated this way, the argument manipulates and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Furthermore, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis it could be evaluated, that buying new eyeglasses is actually more expensive than investing in an eye-strengthening program. These factors will be described in depth in the upcoming abstracts. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that buying new eyeglasses or other vision assisting utilities are more expensive than eye-strengthening programs. For example, there are many different offers regarding the aforementioned programs either on a monthly basis online, in courses which one has to visit or in form of DVDs. Clearly, as one is having a closer look at these methods it becomes obvious that all of these are time consuming to people with a debility of sight. Although a one-time purchase such as a DVD is obviously cheaper, the option of eye-strengthening training programs is not yet confirmed to improve eyesight back to normal, being 100%. Nevertheless, the argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that not only one woman in her 40s made the experience and that "multiple" eyeglass and contact lens users report eye-related problems, but rather show up survey data layed out comprehensible and clearly, so that the reader can see this is a widespread problem.
Second, the argument claims that every two to three years people have to buy new corrective lenses. This is again a weak and unsupported claim and provides flaws in terms of generalization. If the argument had provided statistical evidence, that this is the case, it would have been a lot more convincing. To illustrate the abovementioned case I would like to give the following comparison: It might be that the eyesight of many people worsens after two to three years, but not in all the cases. Here, we have a lot of factors that play a role regarding the issue of worsening eyesight, such as time spent on mobile devices or computers, which heavily influence the rapidness of deterioration of eyesight.
Finally, hence the argument is insufficient and shows up a lack of information and overall is unconvincing, one should pose the following questions to oneself. The first one is as follows: Is my eyesight constantly going to get worse and do I therefore have to keep on buying new corrective lenses every two to three years? The second question should be: Do eye-strengthening programs really help my eyes to improve and is the time consumption of the program worth it? Without convincing answers to these questions one is left with the impression that the claim mentioned above is clearly no substantive evidence.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for the reasons in the abstracts above and is therefore found unconvincing. It could be significantly strengthened, if the author would have provided more information on the people who are claiming to have the issues and on the possibilities and forms of eye-strengthening programs. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Argument:
"People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes."
Answer:
The argument claims that people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions over time and generally assumes, that it will be more costly to people to buy new expensive eyeglasses than to invest in eye-strengthening programs. Stated this way, the argument manipulates and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Furthermore, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis it could be evaluated, that buying new eyeglasses is actually more expensive than investing in an eye-strengthening program. These factors will be described in depth in the upcoming abstracts. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that buying new eyeglasses or other vision assisting utilities are more expensive than eye-strengthening programs. For example, there are many different offers regarding the aforementioned programs either on a monthly basis online, in courses which one has to visit or in form of DVDs. Clearly, as one is having a closer look at these methods it becomes obvious that all of these are time consuming to people with a debility of sight. Although a one-time purchase such as a DVD is obviously cheaper, the option of eye-strengthening training programs is not yet confirmed to improve eyesight back to normal, being 100%. Nevertheless, the argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that not only one woman in her 40s made the experience and that "multiple" eyeglass and contact lens users report eye-related problems, but rather show up survey data layed out comprehensible and clearly, so that the reader can see this is a widespread problem.
Second, the argument claims that every two to three years people have to buy new corrective lenses. This is again a weak and unsupported claim and provides flaws in terms of generalization. If the argument had provided statistical evidence, that this is the case, it would have been a lot more convincing. To illustrate the abovementioned case I would like to give the following comparison: It might be that the eyesight of many people worsens after two to three years, but not in all the cases. Here, we have a lot of factors that play a role regarding the issue of worsening eyesight, such as time spent on mobile devices or computers, which heavily influence the rapidness of deterioration of eyesight.
Finally, hence the argument is insufficient and shows up a lack of information and overall is unconvincing, one should pose the following questions to oneself. The first one is as follows: Is my eyesight constantly going to get worse and do I therefore have to keep on buying new corrective lenses every two to three years? The second question should be: Do eye-strengthening programs really help my eyes to improve and is the time consumption of the program worth it? Without convincing answers to these questions one is left with the impression that the claim mentioned above is clearly no substantive evidence.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for the reasons in the abstracts above and is therefore found unconvincing. It could be significantly strengthened, if the author would have provided more information on the people who are claiming to have the issues and on the possibilities and forms of eye-strengthening programs. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
