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.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 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 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
Updated on: 19 Oct 2010, 13:42
Originally posted by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:33.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:42, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:42, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, I've done a couple of practice AWAs and am pretty sure I'm off track but not quite sure where. I've read the guide on here and the tips in one or two books but still feel a bit short of understanding what's required. If anyone has time to look at any of these and point out obvious ways I'm going wrong I'd really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Matt
Analyze Argument #1
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:
“Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco’s success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument, etc....
YOUR RESPONSE:
The campaign statement highlights a 20% drop in violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg and asserts that this outcome was achieved by adopting a policy of jailing people for committing petty crimes. It argues that there is a causal relationship between the policy and the drop in violent crimes, and therefore that Barchester can achieve the same outcome by adopting the same policy.
In order to evaluate this argument, it is therefore necessary to evaluate the evidence for this causal relationship. In order to demonstrate a causal relationship between an action and an outcome, one needs to show that there could have been no other cause of that outcome. However, the campaign statement does not address potential alternative causes of the drop in violent crimes.
Such an alternative cause could be, for example, a state-wide change in legislation on gun ownership. If such a change in legislation was effective, we may expect to see a drop in violent crime in all cities in the state or nation. To rule out such an alternative explanation it would be helpful to know whether rates of violent crime dropped in other cities that did not adopt the policy of jailing people for petty crime.
It would also be useful to know more about the situation in Spartanburg specifically, in order to see if there were any other policy or socio-economic changes that could provide an alternative explanation for the drop in violent crimes.
Without such evidence to hand, the argument is weak. The reader is left in a position where they must guess as to the legitimacy of the asserted cause and effect relationship.
Finally, the argument may be criticised on other grounds. It implies that the goal of reducing violent crimes is worth the cost of significantly curtailing people's liberty for minor crimes. This is a view that many people would disagree with, as it is widely recognised that one's freedom not to be imprisoned without good reason has such value that it can outweigh almost anything. A relevant example of this is the recent threat to civil liberties posed by anti-terror legislation. Although that legislation is designed to ensure people's safety, many people feel that the curtailment of their liberties is not a price worth paying for that extra safety.
In summary, the argument does not rule out alternative explanations for the drop in violent crimes in Spartanburg, and therefore does not establish causality between the policy and the drop in violent crimes. This means that it is not persuasive in drawing the conclusion that Barchester should follow the same example. In addition, the argument make assumptions, about the value of reducing violent crime at almost any cost, that many people would question or reject. It is not, therefore, a convincing argument.
(462 words)
Cheers,
Matt
Analyze Argument #1
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:
“Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco’s success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument, etc....
YOUR RESPONSE:
The campaign statement highlights a 20% drop in violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg and asserts that this outcome was achieved by adopting a policy of jailing people for committing petty crimes. It argues that there is a causal relationship between the policy and the drop in violent crimes, and therefore that Barchester can achieve the same outcome by adopting the same policy.
In order to evaluate this argument, it is therefore necessary to evaluate the evidence for this causal relationship. In order to demonstrate a causal relationship between an action and an outcome, one needs to show that there could have been no other cause of that outcome. However, the campaign statement does not address potential alternative causes of the drop in violent crimes.
Such an alternative cause could be, for example, a state-wide change in legislation on gun ownership. If such a change in legislation was effective, we may expect to see a drop in violent crime in all cities in the state or nation. To rule out such an alternative explanation it would be helpful to know whether rates of violent crime dropped in other cities that did not adopt the policy of jailing people for petty crime.
It would also be useful to know more about the situation in Spartanburg specifically, in order to see if there were any other policy or socio-economic changes that could provide an alternative explanation for the drop in violent crimes.
Without such evidence to hand, the argument is weak. The reader is left in a position where they must guess as to the legitimacy of the asserted cause and effect relationship.
Finally, the argument may be criticised on other grounds. It implies that the goal of reducing violent crimes is worth the cost of significantly curtailing people's liberty for minor crimes. This is a view that many people would disagree with, as it is widely recognised that one's freedom not to be imprisoned without good reason has such value that it can outweigh almost anything. A relevant example of this is the recent threat to civil liberties posed by anti-terror legislation. Although that legislation is designed to ensure people's safety, many people feel that the curtailment of their liberties is not a price worth paying for that extra safety.
In summary, the argument does not rule out alternative explanations for the drop in violent crimes in Spartanburg, and therefore does not establish causality between the policy and the drop in violent crimes. This means that it is not persuasive in drawing the conclusion that Barchester should follow the same example. In addition, the argument make assumptions, about the value of reducing violent crime at almost any cost, that many people would question or reject. It is not, therefore, a convincing argument.
(462 words)
Updated on: 19 Oct 2010, 13:46
Originally posted by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:35.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:46, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:46, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Analyze Argument #2:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument, etc....
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author concludes that the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced if the government were to enforce food manufacturers to include more vitamins and minerals in their products. However, he or she does not provide sufficient evidence for this conclusion.
Firstly, the author fails adequately to establish a cause and effect relationship between government control of food standards and the increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes. The argument relies upon the assertion that poor nutrition, which leads to diabetes, is the result of lack of government control over the quality of low-priced food. However, no evidence is provided for this. Perhaps poor nutrition is a result of lifestyle choices that lead to a lack of variety in one's diet, rather than a result of poor quality food. Equally, perhaps it is not only low-priced food that results in poor nutrition. In order to strengthen this part of the argument, the author should provide evidence that links the lack of government control of food quality to poor nutrition.
Secondly, the author proposes a solution that equates high levels of vitamins and minerals with good nutrition. However, no evidence is given to support this. In order to show that regulating vitamin and mineral content in food will lead to better nutrition the author needs to provide evidence that establishes that link, otherwise the proposed solution will not necessarily solve the identified problem.
In summary, the author has failed to provide sufficient evidence for his or her conclusion. Without further support for these key inferences, the argument is ultimately unconvincing.
(258 words)
___________________________________________________
(Had a mental block and got to 10 mins to go with nothing to say - that's why it's so short)
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument, etc....
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author concludes that the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced if the government were to enforce food manufacturers to include more vitamins and minerals in their products. However, he or she does not provide sufficient evidence for this conclusion.
Firstly, the author fails adequately to establish a cause and effect relationship between government control of food standards and the increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes. The argument relies upon the assertion that poor nutrition, which leads to diabetes, is the result of lack of government control over the quality of low-priced food. However, no evidence is provided for this. Perhaps poor nutrition is a result of lifestyle choices that lead to a lack of variety in one's diet, rather than a result of poor quality food. Equally, perhaps it is not only low-priced food that results in poor nutrition. In order to strengthen this part of the argument, the author should provide evidence that links the lack of government control of food quality to poor nutrition.
Secondly, the author proposes a solution that equates high levels of vitamins and minerals with good nutrition. However, no evidence is given to support this. In order to show that regulating vitamin and mineral content in food will lead to better nutrition the author needs to provide evidence that establishes that link, otherwise the proposed solution will not necessarily solve the identified problem.
In summary, the author has failed to provide sufficient evidence for his or her conclusion. Without further support for these key inferences, the argument is ultimately unconvincing.
(258 words)
___________________________________________________
(Had a mental block and got to 10 mins to go with nothing to say - that's why it's so short)
Updated on: 19 Oct 2010, 13:44
Originally posted by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:37.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:44, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by mattdrummer on 19 Oct 2010, 13:44, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Analyze Issues #1
ESSAY QUESTION:
“Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix.”
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The statement makes a very general point that is supposed to apply to all businesses. It therefore can be quite easily refuted by a small number of counter-examples. I will go on to give such a counter-example, which demonstrates that the statement is far too general to be very accurate. However, some of the reasoning behind the statement offers insight that is indeed applicable to many businesses. I will address this first.
To some extent it is true that it is very difficult for a business to be all things at once. Many businesses grow and are successful because they specialise in a particular product or service that they master through experience, research and development, and specialist knowledge of their market. From an organisational perspective, one can argue convincingly that it is generally easier to obtain this deep level of knowledge and experience by focusing on a particular area. No organisation has limitless resources, yet there is a limitless amount that one can learn about a particular product or service and its associated market. There are many examples of businesses that have tried to move into a new market area, where they do not have that depth of knowledge, at a cost to the core business.
On the other hand, there are also companies that have crossed product and service boundaries and been extremely successful. A very good example of this is Virgin. The Virgin brand is associated with a huge range of products and services, from fizzy cola to transatlantic flights to music and much more besides. The success of the company is in large part down to the fact that the brand could transcend these boundaries. In this case the specialist knowledge of the company in one particular business area was not all-important and was overcome by the strength of the brand, which allowed the company to acquire the specialist knowledge in each new business area as it went along.
So there are examples on both sides. It also depends on how the argument is framed. Take the example of Google. Google has been very successful in diversifying to offer a range of products and services beyond simple search functionality. It has a calendar service, a map service, a social networking service, it has moved into online books, mobile telephones, and much more. In this sense it has been very successful by crossing product boundaries. However, these products are all within a single category. If Google decided to start building cars, for example, we may doubt whether or not this would be a successful move. In that sense Google is constrained by its expertise and experience in the same way discuessed above. In the case of Virgin one may also argue that the company does indeed specialise, in that it is a specialist in branding. If it tried to become a global leader in manufacturing, for example, it would most likely fail. Therefore, the issue is quite complex and depends upon how one chooses to define the boundaries.
In summary, the issue is too complex for the above statement to be accurate. While it carries some interesting insight that is applicable to many companies, it is far too generalised and therefore not accurate.
(535 words)
ESSAY QUESTION:
“Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix.”
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The statement makes a very general point that is supposed to apply to all businesses. It therefore can be quite easily refuted by a small number of counter-examples. I will go on to give such a counter-example, which demonstrates that the statement is far too general to be very accurate. However, some of the reasoning behind the statement offers insight that is indeed applicable to many businesses. I will address this first.
To some extent it is true that it is very difficult for a business to be all things at once. Many businesses grow and are successful because they specialise in a particular product or service that they master through experience, research and development, and specialist knowledge of their market. From an organisational perspective, one can argue convincingly that it is generally easier to obtain this deep level of knowledge and experience by focusing on a particular area. No organisation has limitless resources, yet there is a limitless amount that one can learn about a particular product or service and its associated market. There are many examples of businesses that have tried to move into a new market area, where they do not have that depth of knowledge, at a cost to the core business.
On the other hand, there are also companies that have crossed product and service boundaries and been extremely successful. A very good example of this is Virgin. The Virgin brand is associated with a huge range of products and services, from fizzy cola to transatlantic flights to music and much more besides. The success of the company is in large part down to the fact that the brand could transcend these boundaries. In this case the specialist knowledge of the company in one particular business area was not all-important and was overcome by the strength of the brand, which allowed the company to acquire the specialist knowledge in each new business area as it went along.
So there are examples on both sides. It also depends on how the argument is framed. Take the example of Google. Google has been very successful in diversifying to offer a range of products and services beyond simple search functionality. It has a calendar service, a map service, a social networking service, it has moved into online books, mobile telephones, and much more. In this sense it has been very successful by crossing product boundaries. However, these products are all within a single category. If Google decided to start building cars, for example, we may doubt whether or not this would be a successful move. In that sense Google is constrained by its expertise and experience in the same way discuessed above. In the case of Virgin one may also argue that the company does indeed specialise, in that it is a specialist in branding. If it tried to become a global leader in manufacturing, for example, it would most likely fail. Therefore, the issue is quite complex and depends upon how one chooses to define the boundaries.
In summary, the issue is too complex for the above statement to be accurate. While it carries some interesting insight that is applicable to many companies, it is far too generalised and therefore not accurate.
(535 words)
