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 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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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.
20 Jun 2011, 07:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
I would appreciate if some you could rate my response.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
“Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”
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 counterexamples 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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
This argument is flawed since to make such an argument one will need to make many assumptions.
It is true that the each generation has lived longer than the preceding one and life expectancy has approached 80 years. But that does not ensure that within a decade life expectancy will improve by 10 years. There are no supporting evidences or statistics provided. If statistics about increase in life expectancy over the years are provided one can arguably infer whether this would be true.
Another fact that one needs to consider about life expectancy is that it's an average of many individuals lifespan which includes infant mortality. That means life expectancy can still be high even with high infant mortality rates. And here we're referring to children born in next decade. And if if the infant mortality rates are high these children would never reach the age of ninety. Hence it is important to understand whether the infant mortality rates currently are high or not and will there be any improvement in it or not in future.
Another assumption that's made here is all children born in America are Americans which need to be true. The premise refers to Americans whereas conclusion refers to children born in America.
It would have supported the argument if there was information provided that medical technology will improve so well that it will ensure life expectancy of above ninety in a decade.
As you would read above, one has to make many assumptions to conclude that most children born in America in the next decade will live past age of ninety. There is also lack of supporting data or premises which would have strengthened the argument.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
“Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”
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 counterexamples 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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
This argument is flawed since to make such an argument one will need to make many assumptions.
It is true that the each generation has lived longer than the preceding one and life expectancy has approached 80 years. But that does not ensure that within a decade life expectancy will improve by 10 years. There are no supporting evidences or statistics provided. If statistics about increase in life expectancy over the years are provided one can arguably infer whether this would be true.
Another fact that one needs to consider about life expectancy is that it's an average of many individuals lifespan which includes infant mortality. That means life expectancy can still be high even with high infant mortality rates. And here we're referring to children born in next decade. And if if the infant mortality rates are high these children would never reach the age of ninety. Hence it is important to understand whether the infant mortality rates currently are high or not and will there be any improvement in it or not in future.
Another assumption that's made here is all children born in America are Americans which need to be true. The premise refers to Americans whereas conclusion refers to children born in America.
It would have supported the argument if there was information provided that medical technology will improve so well that it will ensure life expectancy of above ninety in a decade.
As you would read above, one has to make many assumptions to conclude that most children born in America in the next decade will live past age of ninety. There is also lack of supporting data or premises which would have strengthened the argument.
harshavmrg
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Last visit: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 102
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Status:I will not stop until i realise my goal which is my dream too
Schools: Johnson '15
22 Jun 2011, 00:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
am not Master but a fellow learner....
below are my observations
1. But that does not ensure that within a decade life expectancy will improve by 10 years Life expectacy is 80yrs now, but how have we measured this ? What is the reference year of it? This is right on spot....
2. Giving an counter-example of infant morality also rightly questions the assumption.
3. assumption of all children born are americans...but we know very well that America is the land of immigrants....so if the children born for immigrants, the children in all practical terms are americans, but would they be having the same general life expectacy or would it come down...continuing this, if there is a wave of immigrants from SouthAmerican continent reaches USA, would we be able to say if the life expectacy is going to be same or more even when Medical Technology progresses
But apart from the third para, i am very much convinced with the essay....
As we know that no Essay is right or Wrong..this is just my personal opinion...
below are my observations
1. But that does not ensure that within a decade life expectancy will improve by 10 years Life expectacy is 80yrs now, but how have we measured this ? What is the reference year of it? This is right on spot....
2. Giving an counter-example of infant morality also rightly questions the assumption.
3. assumption of all children born are americans...but we know very well that America is the land of immigrants....so if the children born for immigrants, the children in all practical terms are americans, but would they be having the same general life expectacy or would it come down...continuing this, if there is a wave of immigrants from SouthAmerican continent reaches USA, would we be able to say if the life expectacy is going to be same or more even when Medical Technology progresses
But apart from the third para, i am very much convinced with the essay....
As we know that no Essay is right or Wrong..this is just my personal opinion...
22 Jun 2011, 10:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks for your comments, how will you rate it?
Here is another one. This time it is analysis of an issue.
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:
This issue is complex and different people may have different opinions about the same. Well, it might be particularly true for start ups to focus on a product or service rather than diverse product mix in order to be efficient it necessary need not be true for all other established companies. We need to understand that efficiency means maximum utilization of resources to achieve company's objectives. With this basic understanding, I disagree that a businesses that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer as diverse product mix since it is possible to be efficient even with diverse product mix and it also depends not the target market as well as the type of product or service that is being offered hence. A generalization such as this is not justified.
First, if we assume that efficiency in simple terms is ratio of revenue to resources, it is true that a company offers more than a product or service it may need more resources but at the same time revenue of a company will increase since it offers more than a product; therefore a company can be more efficient that the a company that offers just a service or a product. One of the best examples could be comparison between Google and Facebook. Google offers a diverse service mix, whereas Facebook offers just social networking service. But, it is not true that Facebook is more efficient than Google.
Second, this issue also depends on the choice of a target market for a product or service. If a company offers more than a service for the same target market, efficient will be low since market share would be divided among those services and resources will increase. Example could be sat Facebook starts another social networking site, I'm sure that they will not be as efficient as they are now. They will be creating competition for their own service and thereby reducing market share and eventually efficiency. But if Facebook offers e-mail services, I am sure their efficiency will improve.
Some might agree that it will be efficient to offer a service or a product rather than a diverse product mix. It would not be true since divert product mix would definitely capture more revenue than a product ore service brings. Resources spend initially might be higher to offer a new service but they would be not be comparable to revenue it can generate.
In conclusion, I disagree that companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix. As sighted above, the companies that offer diverse product mix are more likely to be efficient than those that offer a product or service.
Here is another one. This time it is analysis of an issue.
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:
This issue is complex and different people may have different opinions about the same. Well, it might be particularly true for start ups to focus on a product or service rather than diverse product mix in order to be efficient it necessary need not be true for all other established companies. We need to understand that efficiency means maximum utilization of resources to achieve company's objectives. With this basic understanding, I disagree that a businesses that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer as diverse product mix since it is possible to be efficient even with diverse product mix and it also depends not the target market as well as the type of product or service that is being offered hence. A generalization such as this is not justified.
First, if we assume that efficiency in simple terms is ratio of revenue to resources, it is true that a company offers more than a product or service it may need more resources but at the same time revenue of a company will increase since it offers more than a product; therefore a company can be more efficient that the a company that offers just a service or a product. One of the best examples could be comparison between Google and Facebook. Google offers a diverse service mix, whereas Facebook offers just social networking service. But, it is not true that Facebook is more efficient than Google.
Second, this issue also depends on the choice of a target market for a product or service. If a company offers more than a service for the same target market, efficient will be low since market share would be divided among those services and resources will increase. Example could be sat Facebook starts another social networking site, I'm sure that they will not be as efficient as they are now. They will be creating competition for their own service and thereby reducing market share and eventually efficiency. But if Facebook offers e-mail services, I am sure their efficiency will improve.
Some might agree that it will be efficient to offer a service or a product rather than a diverse product mix. It would not be true since divert product mix would definitely capture more revenue than a product ore service brings. Resources spend initially might be higher to offer a new service but they would be not be comparable to revenue it can generate.
In conclusion, I disagree that companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix. As sighted above, the companies that offer diverse product mix are more likely to be efficient than those that offer a product or service.
