Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 6 out of 6!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luckfriendlyvampire99 wrote:
Hi! I'll be taking the GMAT relatively soon and haven't had an opportunity to have an AWA evaluated yet. If anyone could score or provide comments on this one I recently wrote, that would be amazing:
“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument presented states that demand for coffee will increase over the coming decades whereas demand for cola will decrease over the same period, and thus investments made in cola firms should instead be transferred to coffee firms. This is premised upon research that shows an increasing coffee consumption with age as well as a decreasing cola consumption with age, combined with the assumption of an aging population. While the reasoning outlined may seem convincing at first glance, it is in reality riddled with assumptions and arrives at an unconvincing and misleading conclusion. Most strikingly, the argument relies upon the assumptions that present demand for coffee and cola are comparable, that supply factors for these goods will remain consistent in the future, and that historical trends will continue despite a dynamically changing global population.
First and foremost, the trends observed which correlate consumption with age are, in and of themselves, no grounds for judging the profitability, and therefore value of investment of an industry. Other factors, most importantly the current demand for these goods, are required to evaluate the situation any further. If figures outlining current demand as well as magnitudes of any projected changes over the coming decades were included in the argument, a much more convincing argument could be produced. Otherwise, there are a multitude of situations where the argument's predictions may not arise. For example, if the present demand for cola was significantly and incomparably higher than that of coffee, even the presence of the stated trends may not affect the profitability of cola relative to coffee by a notable degree.
In addition, the argument mistakenly assumes that historical trends will remain virtually identical in the future just because they have do so for the past 40 years. However, taking into consideration the present-day culture of rapidly changing demand and products that come into and fade from the public eye rapidly, there is no reason to believe this to be the case. Conversely, there is no shortage goods that were one day considered household staples and safe investments, only to be upended by new innovations. For instance, pendulum clocks were once taken to be a product with an unyielding demand, only to rapidly be replaced by wristwatches in the modern world. The demand for cola or coffee may just as easily swoop low or soar high with future discoveries and advancements.
Finally, the argument fails to take into account supply factors for each of the products in question when reaching its conclusion on which would be a wiser investment. While a higher demand may, in isolation, indicate a better investment, so would a lower cost of production, a higher quality product, or a recognizable brand image, among many other factors. The sudden decision to transfer investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee foregoes any analysis of their balance sheets, income statements, or cash flows, and focuses solely on the perceived future demand of their products. If Cola Loca were, hypothetically, on the verge of bankruptcy, the entire argument would easily fall apart.
To conclude, while the trends presented in the argument may provide a possible image of where the two industries in question will go over the next 20 years, there are several other factors that need to be thoroughly scrutinized and examined before arriving at any conclusion regarding what firms would serve as a desirable investment. In particular, some information that would help considerably would be the present demand for these products and projections of supply factors.