|
|
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.
27 Jul 2015, 20:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument
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 the 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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires
Response
The argument concludes that the people now are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating the intake of red meat and fatty cheese. The argument is weakly concluded upon partially drawn information. The argument bases the comparison on two sample for a generalized conclusion.
The argument presents an example of an organic fruit shop, opened in 1960's, that has a section of cheesees with high butterfat content. This example cannot be justified to infer that the general population is not concerened to regulate their cheese intake. The organic shop may have a significant footfall in the store, primarily for the organic fruits and vegetables. Further, the information regarding the amount of the cheeses sold vis-a-vis the amount of organic fruits and vegetables sold is not considered. It is very much likely that the amount of organic furits and vegetable sold accounts for over 90% of the sale from the store, whereas that of the cheese accounts for only 10%. If this is true, it will weaken the foundation of the argument.
Secondly the author compares the modest living made by the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, with wealth owned by the new House of Beef. However, the comparison of the wealth by the two shop owner is not the true representation of the change in the preference of general population. The argument fails to consider that the beef house owner may have various other businesses, such as hotel, bar, etc., which have contirbuted significantly to the wealth gathered by the owners. On the other hand the owners of the Good Earth Cafe may have a small restaurant with a limited seating and specific menu, which lures a huge number of customers. Inspite of the such a huge demand, it is possible that the owners of cafe had choosen to live modest life and not accumulate wealth.
Considering the above mentioned counter arguments, it is clear that the argument is incomplete and weak. The argument draws the conclusions using partial information. The argument can be strengthened by evaluating the various facts, such as the sale proportion of the organic fruits to cheese, the alternate sources of income for the owners of the beef house and the actual reason for the modest living of the cafe owner. Further the argument can be further strengthened by increasing the sample size for the survey to get a more comprehensive view of the preference of the people toward the dietery habits.
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 the 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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires
Response
The argument concludes that the people now are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating the intake of red meat and fatty cheese. The argument is weakly concluded upon partially drawn information. The argument bases the comparison on two sample for a generalized conclusion.
The argument presents an example of an organic fruit shop, opened in 1960's, that has a section of cheesees with high butterfat content. This example cannot be justified to infer that the general population is not concerened to regulate their cheese intake. The organic shop may have a significant footfall in the store, primarily for the organic fruits and vegetables. Further, the information regarding the amount of the cheeses sold vis-a-vis the amount of organic fruits and vegetables sold is not considered. It is very much likely that the amount of organic furits and vegetable sold accounts for over 90% of the sale from the store, whereas that of the cheese accounts for only 10%. If this is true, it will weaken the foundation of the argument.
Secondly the author compares the modest living made by the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, with wealth owned by the new House of Beef. However, the comparison of the wealth by the two shop owner is not the true representation of the change in the preference of general population. The argument fails to consider that the beef house owner may have various other businesses, such as hotel, bar, etc., which have contirbuted significantly to the wealth gathered by the owners. On the other hand the owners of the Good Earth Cafe may have a small restaurant with a limited seating and specific menu, which lures a huge number of customers. Inspite of the such a huge demand, it is possible that the owners of cafe had choosen to live modest life and not accumulate wealth.
Considering the above mentioned counter arguments, it is clear that the argument is incomplete and weak. The argument draws the conclusions using partial information. The argument can be strengthened by evaluating the various facts, such as the sale proportion of the organic fruits to cheese, the alternate sources of income for the owners of the beef house and the actual reason for the modest living of the cafe owner. Further the argument can be further strengthened by increasing the sample size for the survey to get a more comprehensive view of the preference of the people toward the dietery habits.
30 Jul 2015, 04:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Having just started practising AWA essays myself, I'll do my best to point out a few observations in your argument. Overall, I think the structure of your response is good, though I think a few too many spelling mistakes reveal that you perhaps didn't have time to review the essay within the time limit. Further, from what I have gathered from a variety of threads on AWA's, the ideal length for a AWA should be about 500 odd words. Also, it would help to have 3 body paragraphs instead of two,and then the concluding paragraph!
03 Aug 2015, 01:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thank you all for the Kudos! Have appeared for the GMAT and scored 680 (Q49, V34) Awaiting AWA score. Will update as soon as I get that
