Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
May 0312:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
07 Jun 2020, 10:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Looking for any insight and feedback! Thank you!
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles:
“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 ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”
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.
My writing:
This argument that people are currently not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago is incomplete. It does not present adequate information or sufficient relevant findings to draw this conclusion.
First, the excerpt does not give complete factual information in regards to the profit difference of Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef. The statements that the owners of Good Earth Cafe make "a modest living" and that the owners of House of Beef "are millionaires" are vague. To draw a conclusion, there would need to be a defined number depicting the profits of each establishment and only then can we compare. Additionally, since the argument focuses on how people's food concerns have changed in the past decade, it would be helpful to have information on the profits during each of the 10 years. While the statement explains that House of Beef has higher profits than Good Earth Cafe, that doesn't mean that people are becoming less concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. For example, if Good Earth Cafe's profits have steadily increased year over year for the past 10 years, the argument may prove to be false as this could show that even though House of Beef is still making millions, there is a growing concern of people's intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.
Second, the information given about Heart's Delight is completely insufficient and useless in drawing any conclusion as it gives no insight of the popularity of their food items. It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the sales for their products. This way, we can compare the sales of organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours to the sales of cheese. If we find that their wide selection of cheese has significantly less sales, the argument may need to be altered. Additionally, if we could see this data for the past 10 years, we would be able to calculate how these sales have increased or decreased. For example, if we find that the sales of fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain flours have increased or that the sales of the store's cheeses have decreased, we could better support a more accurate conclusion.
Third, the argument is drawing one conclusion for a seemingly large, undefined range of people based on vague findings from just three food stores. This is not nearly a sufficient amount of information to draw a conclusion like this. More information that would be helpful may include sales from all grocery stores in the world or surveys taken by a diverse group of people indicating their food preferences over the past decade. With further information beyond just these individual stores, we can strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, more information regarding these restaurants' sales and profits is needed to make an argument on this case as well as more information from additional sources. Only then can a conclusion be determined and a strong argument can be made.
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles:
“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 ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”
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.
My writing:
This argument that people are currently not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago is incomplete. It does not present adequate information or sufficient relevant findings to draw this conclusion.
First, the excerpt does not give complete factual information in regards to the profit difference of Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef. The statements that the owners of Good Earth Cafe make "a modest living" and that the owners of House of Beef "are millionaires" are vague. To draw a conclusion, there would need to be a defined number depicting the profits of each establishment and only then can we compare. Additionally, since the argument focuses on how people's food concerns have changed in the past decade, it would be helpful to have information on the profits during each of the 10 years. While the statement explains that House of Beef has higher profits than Good Earth Cafe, that doesn't mean that people are becoming less concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. For example, if Good Earth Cafe's profits have steadily increased year over year for the past 10 years, the argument may prove to be false as this could show that even though House of Beef is still making millions, there is a growing concern of people's intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.
Second, the information given about Heart's Delight is completely insufficient and useless in drawing any conclusion as it gives no insight of the popularity of their food items. It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the sales for their products. This way, we can compare the sales of organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours to the sales of cheese. If we find that their wide selection of cheese has significantly less sales, the argument may need to be altered. Additionally, if we could see this data for the past 10 years, we would be able to calculate how these sales have increased or decreased. For example, if we find that the sales of fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain flours have increased or that the sales of the store's cheeses have decreased, we could better support a more accurate conclusion.
Third, the argument is drawing one conclusion for a seemingly large, undefined range of people based on vague findings from just three food stores. This is not nearly a sufficient amount of information to draw a conclusion like this. More information that would be helpful may include sales from all grocery stores in the world or surveys taken by a diverse group of people indicating their food preferences over the past decade. With further information beyond just these individual stores, we can strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, more information regarding these restaurants' sales and profits is needed to make an argument on this case as well as more information from additional sources. Only then can a conclusion be determined and a strong argument can be made.
Moderators:
196 posts
