Dear fellow Gmatclub members,
Me being a non-native speaker, this is my first AWA that has exceeded 400 words. Request you to provide your reviews/feedback on the strategy used for this method/sequence of events and suggest possible improvements to face the AWA section on the GMAT. I have also added a poll to elicit responses that will help review my AWA better.
Prompt: The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper:
Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Step 1. TEMPLATE (Around 200 words - Took 8.5 mins to type this - used the
chineseburned awa strategy):
The argument claims that, 11. Stated in this way, the argument fails to provide several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated better. The conclusion relies on assumptions to which no clear evidence is provided. The argument is thus considered weak and has many flaws.
To begin with, the argument readily assumes 11. This statement is a stretch, for 11. To illustrate, 11. If more evidence was provided for 111, the claim would be more believable.
Next, the argument states 111. This is again, a very unsupported claim, as it fails to demonstrate any correlation between A and B. For example, 11. The claim would be much clearer if the argument explicitly stated 11.
Finally, 11. Q1, Q2. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if it provided relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, the argument must take into account all the contributing factors. The argument is considered unsubstantive and therefore, open to debate.
Step 2. Assumptions/Questions: a. Lowering prices -> Increases circulation. b. Increase in circulation -> More advertising space by local businesses
Step 3. Actual Essay (Total 433 words - Filled this into the template in the remaining 21.5 mins):
The argument claims that, the circulation of the Mercury newspaper can be restored by lowering its price below that of the Bugle, its competitor until its circulation levels are restored. Further it says, that this increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Stated in this way, the argument fails to provide several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated better. The conclusion relies on assumptions to which no clear evidence is provided. The argument is thus considered weak and has many flaws.
To begin with, the argument readily assumes that the price reduction by the Mercury will restore the circulation levels that had declined. This statement is a stretch, as there is no clear evidence to support this claim. Also, the cause of the need for reduction in price is not mentioned. To illustrate, the Bugle may be a cheaper newspaper with medium quality of information presented whereas the Mercury may be an excellent newspaper in terms of content and quality of information provided but very expensive to the average reader. If more evidence was provided for the class of reader that this solution targets, the claim would be more believable.
Next, the argument states that increase in circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space. This is again, a very unsupported claim, as it fails to show any proof of how this is profitable for Mercury. For example, the increase in advertising space would reduce the overall content of the newspaper, which could again lead to decreased circulation as readers might lose interest. The claim would be much clearer if the argument explicitly mentioned exactly what portion of the newspaper would be reserved for advertising spaces.
Finally, more thought needs to be given to the following questions. Is the quality of content in the Mercury is similar to that of the Bugle? How do we know that the same course of price reduction will not be taken by the Bugle? Such an action could lead to a price war between the two and could be a potential risk to the profits of Mercury. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if it provided all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, the argument must take into account all the contributing factors. The argument is considered unsubstantive and therefore, open to debate.
-----------------
PS: Will appreciate any critique of the technique/strategy/your response on the poll if typing a reply is too much of a hassle.