|
|
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.
03 Jan 2021, 01:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles:
“Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Response:
According to this passage, City L’s ranking on the survey mentioned indicates a higher standard of living that could be, at least peripherally, enjoyed by those moving to the city in which City L is located. However, the lack of discussion relating to the scope and reliability of the survey, nothing to indicate that City L’s position in the indicated list actual translates to a better quality of living, and a false argument linking the conditions of one city to that of the rest of the state, renders this argument weak.
First, the author fails to expound on how and by whom the survey was conducted. One of the most troubling aspects of this, in terms of its contribution to the strength of the argument, is the number of cities that were actually surveyed for this purpose. For example, ranking 14th in a list of 2500 cities would more positively strengthen the argument as opposed to when the city merely ranks 14th in a list of 15 cities. Moreover, the author also fails to mention the credibility of those conducting the survey. Although this does not negatively influence the argument as strongly as the previous point, the reader will be much more convinced if he/she knew that the survey was conducted by an organization that had created stringent metrics for evaluating one city against another.
Secondly, the reader is also not given any information about what ranking 14th actually means in reality. For example, the reader is not able to evaluate which categories and by how far City L had to lag behind the city in 13th place in terms of the metrics used in the survey; There may or may not be a significant drop in performance that the reader should be concerned about. Furthermore, we do not know if ranking 14th is good or bad relative to City L’s previous years’ performances. It may be the case that City L performed so badly that it did not even make the list in previous years. Combined with the previous shortcoming discussed, the reliance of the author’s argument on this survey has proved his/her argument unconvincing. However, the author can attempt to include background information on the survey itself and discussion of what relative performances – to other cities and City L’s performance in the past – indicate in terms of quality of living.
Lastly, although it is fair for the author to point out that those interested to moving to the state where City L is located can point out at least one place where the quality of life may be better, the reader might find this argument inconsequential to his/her own quality of life should he/she decide to make the indicated move. Case in point, the aforementioned state may be extremely large, with City L merely covering 0.01% of its total surface area. Furthermore, City L might be remotely located to all other metropolitan areas in the state. Both, or either one, of these circumstances most probably indicates that if any elevated quality of living is experienced in City L, it is most probably isolated to a singular location in the state, and cannot be used to extrapolate the living conditions in other parts of the same state. A discussion of City L’s influence on the state as a whole would lessen the negative impact this discussion has on the overall strength of argument; Perhaps, if City L was the state’s capital, the reader would be more inclined to be convinced by said argument.
All in all, the argument is made weak by the lack of detail and discussion surrounding the survey itself, what the results of the survey imply for the city in reality, and the relevance of the argument’s findings are to those looking to move to the state in which City L is located.
The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles:
“Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Response:
According to this passage, City L’s ranking on the survey mentioned indicates a higher standard of living that could be, at least peripherally, enjoyed by those moving to the city in which City L is located. However, the lack of discussion relating to the scope and reliability of the survey, nothing to indicate that City L’s position in the indicated list actual translates to a better quality of living, and a false argument linking the conditions of one city to that of the rest of the state, renders this argument weak.
First, the author fails to expound on how and by whom the survey was conducted. One of the most troubling aspects of this, in terms of its contribution to the strength of the argument, is the number of cities that were actually surveyed for this purpose. For example, ranking 14th in a list of 2500 cities would more positively strengthen the argument as opposed to when the city merely ranks 14th in a list of 15 cities. Moreover, the author also fails to mention the credibility of those conducting the survey. Although this does not negatively influence the argument as strongly as the previous point, the reader will be much more convinced if he/she knew that the survey was conducted by an organization that had created stringent metrics for evaluating one city against another.
Secondly, the reader is also not given any information about what ranking 14th actually means in reality. For example, the reader is not able to evaluate which categories and by how far City L had to lag behind the city in 13th place in terms of the metrics used in the survey; There may or may not be a significant drop in performance that the reader should be concerned about. Furthermore, we do not know if ranking 14th is good or bad relative to City L’s previous years’ performances. It may be the case that City L performed so badly that it did not even make the list in previous years. Combined with the previous shortcoming discussed, the reliance of the author’s argument on this survey has proved his/her argument unconvincing. However, the author can attempt to include background information on the survey itself and discussion of what relative performances – to other cities and City L’s performance in the past – indicate in terms of quality of living.
Lastly, although it is fair for the author to point out that those interested to moving to the state where City L is located can point out at least one place where the quality of life may be better, the reader might find this argument inconsequential to his/her own quality of life should he/she decide to make the indicated move. Case in point, the aforementioned state may be extremely large, with City L merely covering 0.01% of its total surface area. Furthermore, City L might be remotely located to all other metropolitan areas in the state. Both, or either one, of these circumstances most probably indicates that if any elevated quality of living is experienced in City L, it is most probably isolated to a singular location in the state, and cannot be used to extrapolate the living conditions in other parts of the same state. A discussion of City L’s influence on the state as a whole would lessen the negative impact this discussion has on the overall strength of argument; Perhaps, if City L was the state’s capital, the reader would be more inclined to be convinced by said argument.
All in all, the argument is made weak by the lack of detail and discussion surrounding the survey itself, what the results of the survey imply for the city in reality, and the relevance of the argument’s findings are to those looking to move to the state in which City L is located.
Moderators:
188 posts
