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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
sanjeebpanda
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 14
Location: United States (NJ)
Schools: Sloan (MIT)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V41
19 Apr 2014, 10:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months.”
argument claims that Train & Gain,used by professional bodybuilders, is available in all the Major Pharmacies.Hence, anyone can use the protein and gain or boost body strength.Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and seriously flawed.
First, the argument readily assumes that the use of Train and Gain has increased the strength of professional bodybuilders. This statement is stretch and is not substantiated. In last couple of years after the Biotechnology boom, there has been many proteins into market but few of them have proved their potentials in the long run. More over most of these proteins have side effects which are often neglected and have not come into public domain. Hence, this assumption required some statistical data to prove that Train and Gain will work well. Hence, more solid data could be helpful in evaluating the argument.
Second, the argument claims that as the Train and Gain has helped to increased the strength of professional body builders, so it will do for any one. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. The argument fails to state the fact the other habits of the professional body builders which along with the protein might worked as a catalyst. Moreover there is nu substance or facts to prove that the only the protein ca help to increase the body strength. There more the argument needs more evidence.
Finally the argument concludes that,Try Train and Gain and you can boost your strength and achieve professional strength. By validation all the assumptions and data points given in the passage, one can wish that any one can really boost his strength. Without any facts, the conclusion of the argument cant stand alone on its legs.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing.The argument could be strengthened further, if author provided some connecting examples.In order to access the merit of an argument , it is essential to have full knowledge of all the stakeholders.
argument claims that Train & Gain,used by professional bodybuilders, is available in all the Major Pharmacies.Hence, anyone can use the protein and gain or boost body strength.Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and seriously flawed.
First, the argument readily assumes that the use of Train and Gain has increased the strength of professional bodybuilders. This statement is stretch and is not substantiated. In last couple of years after the Biotechnology boom, there has been many proteins into market but few of them have proved their potentials in the long run. More over most of these proteins have side effects which are often neglected and have not come into public domain. Hence, this assumption required some statistical data to prove that Train and Gain will work well. Hence, more solid data could be helpful in evaluating the argument.
Second, the argument claims that as the Train and Gain has helped to increased the strength of professional body builders, so it will do for any one. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. The argument fails to state the fact the other habits of the professional body builders which along with the protein might worked as a catalyst. Moreover there is nu substance or facts to prove that the only the protein ca help to increase the body strength. There more the argument needs more evidence.
Finally the argument concludes that,Try Train and Gain and you can boost your strength and achieve professional strength. By validation all the assumptions and data points given in the passage, one can wish that any one can really boost his strength. Without any facts, the conclusion of the argument cant stand alone on its legs.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing.The argument could be strengthened further, if author provided some connecting examples.In order to access the merit of an argument , it is essential to have full knowledge of all the stakeholders.
25 Apr 2014, 08:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think you got a bit bogged down with real world examples from your own experience. You bring in your own argument about biotech boom, no protein proving performance in long run etc. AWA is about you analysing/criticising the argument, not providing your own information on the issue.
Sure, bring up the idea that the protein may not work, but bring it up in reference to the claim made in the argument - that taking it will result in 'professional-level performance'.
You were on the money with your point about correlation/causation - did the bodybuilders strength gain result from taking the protein powder, or was it caused by their training program that would have seen a 20% strength gain without the protein. I think you need to more explicitly state what is going on in the first sentence of your paragraph- i.e. 'The argument confuses correlation with causation by assuming that the 20% strength gain was a result of the bodybuilders using the protein and not a result of other possible factors such as an increase of training or use of steroids.
These two sentences could be joined;
Second, the argument claims that as the Train and Gain has helped to increased the strength of professional body builders, so it will do for any one. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim.
With this sentence;
The argument fails to state the fact the other habits of the professional body builders which along with the protein might worked as a catalyst
Does the argument 'fail to state' this? Stating that would have weakened the argument, so it cannot be a failure that it was not stated. Be careful using set-ups such as 'fails to state' for information which would essentially weaken the argument. An argument can only fail to state something that would have strengthened it. If it omits something that would have weakened it, then that's misleading, but it is not a failure.
Sure, bring up the idea that the protein may not work, but bring it up in reference to the claim made in the argument - that taking it will result in 'professional-level performance'.
You were on the money with your point about correlation/causation - did the bodybuilders strength gain result from taking the protein powder, or was it caused by their training program that would have seen a 20% strength gain without the protein. I think you need to more explicitly state what is going on in the first sentence of your paragraph- i.e. 'The argument confuses correlation with causation by assuming that the 20% strength gain was a result of the bodybuilders using the protein and not a result of other possible factors such as an increase of training or use of steroids.
These two sentences could be joined;
Second, the argument claims that as the Train and Gain has helped to increased the strength of professional body builders, so it will do for any one. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim.
With this sentence;
The argument fails to state the fact the other habits of the professional body builders which along with the protein might worked as a catalyst
Does the argument 'fail to state' this? Stating that would have weakened the argument, so it cannot be a failure that it was not stated. Be careful using set-ups such as 'fails to state' for information which would essentially weaken the argument. An argument can only fail to state something that would have strengthened it. If it omits something that would have weakened it, then that's misleading, but it is not a failure.
Moderator:
