|
|
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.
09 Sep 2023, 09:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi all,
I have attempted AWA twice, during official practice tests and then submitted on AWA forum for evaluation. Both times, my AWA was graded at 5.0 points out of total 6.0. After first attempt, I updated my template after taking inputs from ChineseBurned AWA template but still was not able to improve my score. My GMAT exam is scheduled in less than a week and i am clueless as to how to improve and get a perfect score in AWA section. I want to achieve perfect score to make a good impression during interview process. Kindly suggest what can be done to improve my score.
Thanks.
Following are my sample essays submitted on the forum:
Essay 1
"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 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 Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
My essay:
The aforementioned argument, in assisting that people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, appears at first glance to be fairly convincing. However, on further examination of argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident in its reasoning. The most pivotal shortcomings of argument are its inability of address or even acknowledge its underlying assumptions and lack of sufficient information to substantiate its claim.
First of all, the argument, based on observations of limited sample size i.e. three restaurants, attempts a hasty generalization to claim that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of high fat content. For such a claim to be made, author should have supplemented his claim with relevant data about average fat intake of people in general now compared to a decade ago. Also, the observations based on these food outlets may not hold true for people in general as well.
Second of all, author assumes wide selection of cheeses available in Heart's Delight means people are not concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. This may not be true, as there may be another reasons for Heart's Delight to offer wide range of cheese. It may be possible that due to this factor, people who are concerned about their fat intake but still consume fat below designated limit may find Heart's Delight an attractive choice compared to restaurants who don't offer these fatty cheeses.
Further, argument relates modest living of Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restuarant, to them not providing fatty cheeses to their customers. It may not be the case, as their may be several other reasons as to why Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, which the argument does not include. Some of possible factors of modest income generated by this cafe might include sub-standard service to its customers, inferior quality of food compared to other restuarants or poor seating etc.
Moreover, argument attributes financial success of Owners of House of Beef to them offering red meat and fatty cheeses. This may not be true as well, since there may be multiple reasons for their financial success. The argument should have provided financial performance metrics of House of Beef which relates them to their offering of red meat and fatty cheeses. The information regarding operation of these three restaurants, their revenue, their installed seating capacity and quality of offered food should be included in the argument to be in better position to blame people for not being concerned about their fat intake.
The assumption that if people eat high fat content food then they are not concerned about their fat intake is too far fetched. It may be the case that, people are concerned about their fat intake and still they consume this fat in limited qunatity. This assumption is not well founded from the facts given in the argument.
The argument, in its given form, contains a considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address these defects, both its persuasive ability and legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization with overreaching assumptions and lack of sufficient information.
Essay 2:
The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm.
“Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker’s consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker’s consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee.”
My essay:
The aforementioned argument claims that an investment and financial consulting firm should consider transferring their invesments from Cola Loca, cold brand, to Early Bird Coffee, a coffee brand because of increasing number of older adults over the next 20 years. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Among the most pivotal shortcomings of the argument are its inability to address, or even acknowledge, its underlying assumptions and provide sufficient information to substantiate its claims. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that demand for coffee will increase and demand for cola will decrease in next 20 years. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, it may be the case that even after reduced demand for cola, still revenues generated from selling cola is higher than that generated from selling coffee. Since the argument does not provide current statistics of coffee and cola consumption and hence, revnues generated from their sale, it can not be ascertained that transferring investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee will be beneficial for the firm. Clearly this leap of faith affects the reasoning of the argument. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided additional information to be in a better position to comment on investment strategy of the firm.
Second, the argument assumes that, to cater to increased demand for cola, firm should transfer its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee. However, argument misses several another possible courses of action that could be possible. For instance, the firm may be able to cater to increased demand for coffee without reducing its investments in brand of cola. The argument does not provide any reason to believe that this is the best course of action that firm should opt for. The argument would have been a lot more convincing if it provided further evidence to cement its reasoning as to why transferring invesments from Cola Loca to Early Bird coffee is suitable for the firm.
Further, the argument fails to provide answer to few questions. For example, what will be the general population distribution of young adults in next 20 years? As this may provide significant insights as to how much will the consumption of cola reduce over next 20 years. In addition, How likely is for the trends observed for coffee and cola consumption in the past, to continue in the future? Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the aforementioned argument contains a considerable number of defects, most blatant of which have been discussed above. The argument could have been strengthened considerably, if answers to questions raised above were provided. However, as it stands, one must necessarily conclude that the argument is a hasty generalization filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information. Without this information, the conclusion is unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.
I have attempted AWA twice, during official practice tests and then submitted on AWA forum for evaluation. Both times, my AWA was graded at 5.0 points out of total 6.0. After first attempt, I updated my template after taking inputs from ChineseBurned AWA template but still was not able to improve my score. My GMAT exam is scheduled in less than a week and i am clueless as to how to improve and get a perfect score in AWA section. I want to achieve perfect score to make a good impression during interview process. Kindly suggest what can be done to improve my score.
Thanks.
Following are my sample essays submitted on the forum:
Essay 1
"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 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 Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
My essay:
The aforementioned argument, in assisting that people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, appears at first glance to be fairly convincing. However, on further examination of argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident in its reasoning. The most pivotal shortcomings of argument are its inability of address or even acknowledge its underlying assumptions and lack of sufficient information to substantiate its claim.
First of all, the argument, based on observations of limited sample size i.e. three restaurants, attempts a hasty generalization to claim that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of high fat content. For such a claim to be made, author should have supplemented his claim with relevant data about average fat intake of people in general now compared to a decade ago. Also, the observations based on these food outlets may not hold true for people in general as well.
Second of all, author assumes wide selection of cheeses available in Heart's Delight means people are not concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. This may not be true, as there may be another reasons for Heart's Delight to offer wide range of cheese. It may be possible that due to this factor, people who are concerned about their fat intake but still consume fat below designated limit may find Heart's Delight an attractive choice compared to restaurants who don't offer these fatty cheeses.
Further, argument relates modest living of Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restuarant, to them not providing fatty cheeses to their customers. It may not be the case, as their may be several other reasons as to why Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, which the argument does not include. Some of possible factors of modest income generated by this cafe might include sub-standard service to its customers, inferior quality of food compared to other restuarants or poor seating etc.
Moreover, argument attributes financial success of Owners of House of Beef to them offering red meat and fatty cheeses. This may not be true as well, since there may be multiple reasons for their financial success. The argument should have provided financial performance metrics of House of Beef which relates them to their offering of red meat and fatty cheeses. The information regarding operation of these three restaurants, their revenue, their installed seating capacity and quality of offered food should be included in the argument to be in better position to blame people for not being concerned about their fat intake.
The assumption that if people eat high fat content food then they are not concerned about their fat intake is too far fetched. It may be the case that, people are concerned about their fat intake and still they consume this fat in limited qunatity. This assumption is not well founded from the facts given in the argument.
The argument, in its given form, contains a considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address these defects, both its persuasive ability and legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization with overreaching assumptions and lack of sufficient information.
Essay 2:
The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm.
“Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker’s consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker’s consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee.”
My essay:
The aforementioned argument claims that an investment and financial consulting firm should consider transferring their invesments from Cola Loca, cold brand, to Early Bird Coffee, a coffee brand because of increasing number of older adults over the next 20 years. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Among the most pivotal shortcomings of the argument are its inability to address, or even acknowledge, its underlying assumptions and provide sufficient information to substantiate its claims. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that demand for coffee will increase and demand for cola will decrease in next 20 years. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, it may be the case that even after reduced demand for cola, still revenues generated from selling cola is higher than that generated from selling coffee. Since the argument does not provide current statistics of coffee and cola consumption and hence, revnues generated from their sale, it can not be ascertained that transferring investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee will be beneficial for the firm. Clearly this leap of faith affects the reasoning of the argument. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided additional information to be in a better position to comment on investment strategy of the firm.
Second, the argument assumes that, to cater to increased demand for cola, firm should transfer its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee. However, argument misses several another possible courses of action that could be possible. For instance, the firm may be able to cater to increased demand for coffee without reducing its investments in brand of cola. The argument does not provide any reason to believe that this is the best course of action that firm should opt for. The argument would have been a lot more convincing if it provided further evidence to cement its reasoning as to why transferring invesments from Cola Loca to Early Bird coffee is suitable for the firm.
Further, the argument fails to provide answer to few questions. For example, what will be the general population distribution of young adults in next 20 years? As this may provide significant insights as to how much will the consumption of cola reduce over next 20 years. In addition, How likely is for the trends observed for coffee and cola consumption in the past, to continue in the future? Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the aforementioned argument contains a considerable number of defects, most blatant of which have been discussed above. The argument could have been strengthened considerably, if answers to questions raised above were provided. However, as it stands, one must necessarily conclude that the argument is a hasty generalization filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information. Without this information, the conclusion is unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.
10 Sep 2023, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please read the AWA sub-forum posting rules and post your essay again.
Thank you!
Thank you!
walterwhite756
Moderators:
188 posts
