|
|
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.
06 Aug 2017, 08:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q. Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
The argument claims that Federville Farms (FF) provides the optimal camp experience for children, given that it ranks highly across multiple categories, and because it provides a safe environment. Such claims however are unsupported with relevant evidence and information, and are damaged by unfound logical connections. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the argument is unconvincing and needs improvements to better communicate its intended message.
The first such area for improvement is found within how FF chooses to first support why they are a superior camp. Specifically, FF states that they are ranked first in overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activities. Although this is seemingly a positive, and would support FF being superior to other comparable camps, the ranking board who administered this survey is unknown, and such it is possible that it came from a small sample size or a biased group. Additionally, although FF ranks high in these categories, the reader is unaware of how many other camps were included in the survey, and whether there are any categories in which FF is low (example: healthcare or staff quality). To improve this statement, it would be important to provide additional information regarding the full range of graded categories, and the specifics on who performed these rankings, and how many camps were included.
The second problem area in the argument is in the assumption that, by the camp being “family owned and operated for over forty years” it makes them a safe camp. Although such a tenure would lead the reader to believe the camp has been successful/profitable for a while, being opened a long time by a family does not necessary ensure the camp is safe; there is no evidence presented that a family owned camp is necessary safer than a corporate owned camp. To further support the claim that FF is safe, the argument states FF has more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp. Although this would appear to improve the safety claim, they statement does allow for some misinterpretation by the reader. Namely, this misinterpretation can be found in the reality that, if a camp is much larger than any other camp in the state, it should be expected to have more lifeguards. Consequently, the more important metric is whether the ratio of campers to lifeguards is the most ideal at FF. FF could have 100 lifeguards, but also have 10,000 campers, while a similar camp in the state could have 50 lifeguards, but 1,000 campers. In this example, the second camp would be expected to be more safe given that each lifeguard would be responsible for fewer campers. Additionally, we do not know whether other camps in the area have lifeguards certified by a group other than the Red Cross. To improve upon these issues, it would be beneficial for the argument to specifically claim that FF has the best ratio of certified lifeguards to campers.
To access the argument fully, and understand whether FF is truly the best choice a parent can make in regards to sending their child to a camp, it is essential that the author includes more information to support their original claims. Such information includes, the specifics behind the ranking board and the full range of rankings across all categories, as well as the ratio of certified life guards (not just Red Cross) to campers at FF and at comparable camps. Without this information, the argument’s primary conclusion remains unclear and open to debate.
The argument claims that Federville Farms (FF) provides the optimal camp experience for children, given that it ranks highly across multiple categories, and because it provides a safe environment. Such claims however are unsupported with relevant evidence and information, and are damaged by unfound logical connections. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the argument is unconvincing and needs improvements to better communicate its intended message.
The first such area for improvement is found within how FF chooses to first support why they are a superior camp. Specifically, FF states that they are ranked first in overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in a variety of outdoor activities. Although this is seemingly a positive, and would support FF being superior to other comparable camps, the ranking board who administered this survey is unknown, and such it is possible that it came from a small sample size or a biased group. Additionally, although FF ranks high in these categories, the reader is unaware of how many other camps were included in the survey, and whether there are any categories in which FF is low (example: healthcare or staff quality). To improve this statement, it would be important to provide additional information regarding the full range of graded categories, and the specifics on who performed these rankings, and how many camps were included.
The second problem area in the argument is in the assumption that, by the camp being “family owned and operated for over forty years” it makes them a safe camp. Although such a tenure would lead the reader to believe the camp has been successful/profitable for a while, being opened a long time by a family does not necessary ensure the camp is safe; there is no evidence presented that a family owned camp is necessary safer than a corporate owned camp. To further support the claim that FF is safe, the argument states FF has more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp. Although this would appear to improve the safety claim, they statement does allow for some misinterpretation by the reader. Namely, this misinterpretation can be found in the reality that, if a camp is much larger than any other camp in the state, it should be expected to have more lifeguards. Consequently, the more important metric is whether the ratio of campers to lifeguards is the most ideal at FF. FF could have 100 lifeguards, but also have 10,000 campers, while a similar camp in the state could have 50 lifeguards, but 1,000 campers. In this example, the second camp would be expected to be more safe given that each lifeguard would be responsible for fewer campers. Additionally, we do not know whether other camps in the area have lifeguards certified by a group other than the Red Cross. To improve upon these issues, it would be beneficial for the argument to specifically claim that FF has the best ratio of certified lifeguards to campers.
To access the argument fully, and understand whether FF is truly the best choice a parent can make in regards to sending their child to a camp, it is essential that the author includes more information to support their original claims. Such information includes, the specifics behind the ranking board and the full range of rankings across all categories, as well as the ratio of certified life guards (not just Red Cross) to campers at FF and at comparable camps. Without this information, the argument’s primary conclusion remains unclear and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
