Looking for feedback on sample AWA essay

Question

The argument states that the previous location of the Cumquat Café (CC), now occupied by a Hippocrene Plumbing Supply (HPS) wholesale outlet, is clearly a better business location than the Café's new location. However, the evidence provided in support of this conclusion is ambiguous, and more information is needed to warrent such a strong statement.

First, the argument states that HPS is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. This fact is used as evidence that the HPS wholesale outlet must be doing well in CC's old location. However, just because HPS is planning to expand into a nearby city does not necessarily imply that the wholesale outlet is doing well. Many businesses will expand in certain locations while shutting down existing facilities that underperform. In order to strengthen this line of reasoning, more information would be needed about the wholesale outlet specifically.

The argument then provides as further evidence the fact that CC's volume of business has dropped "somewhat from the previous year's". This ambiguous language fails to establish a clear and meaningful contrast between the two locations. It is possible that CC serviced 50,000 customers last year, and 49,500 at the new location this year. It could also be that the prior year was a fluke, and that volume at the new location, while somewhat less than the prior year, may well exceed the average over the last several years. In addition, volume does not necessarily equate to success. If the customers served in the new location purchase higher end products and services, or if the new location has significantly lower overhead costs, it is possible that profits at the new location have increased over those at the old location.

Finally, inferring from the apparent success of the HPS wholesale outlet that CC would also continue to be successful at that location, the argument fails to consider the contrasts between the two businesses. HPS, afterall, is a wholesale outlet, whereas CC is a retail food and service provider--the former often doing well in industrial type zones and the latter in more commercial/residential zones. It is entirely possible that that particular location had been experiencing a demographic shift in recent years, from a once commercial neighborhood into a more industry-oriented zone.

In short, the argument fails to provide clear evidence that Cumquat Café's old location is the better business location. Such a broad conclusion "better business location" fails to distinguish between different sorts of businesses (better for whom?), and furthermore, the evidence provided in support of it being a better business location for any specific industry is also absent.

jonny1986 · Answer

In a recent presentation, the chief production manager argued that all drill bit production should be moved to the most advanced and efficient factory in Cookville, while production of all other machine parts should be moved from Cookville to the other factories. This recommendation is based on several questionable assumptions, and lacks sufficient information to justify such action.

First, the argument is based on the observation that the Cookville factory can produce the drill bits more cost-effectively than the other plants, 10 bits per dollar versus 7 bits per dollar (at most) respectively. However, this line of reasoning fails to consider how the production of bits compares to the overall output of the company, and whether the other plants are more or less efficient in the other areas of production. For instance, suppose that bits represent around 10% of the total goods produced across all factories. Further suppose that the other 90% is devoted to the production of saw blades, which can be produced at the rate of 10 blades per dollar at the Cookville plant versus 3 blades per dollar at the other plants. In this scenario, it's possible that by transferring the production of these blades to the other factories, the overall costs production would actually increase.

In addition, the argument fails to consider the costs associated with scaling up production in the Cookville factory. While at current output levels the 10 bits per dollar figure might be accurate, it is uncertain whether that level of efficiency would continue at higher levels of production. For example, suppose that part of the efficiency at the Cookville factory is due to its effective use of raw materials by creating both drill bits and saw blades through the same sheets of metal, thereby reducing time and waste. By discontinuing the production of saw blades at the Cookville factory, the efficiency in drill bit production may decline to levels below the other plants.

Finally, there is no discussion of the feasibility of shifting production between the factories, and the potential costs associated with it. Changes in production often require changes in machinery and labor, which can represent short-term expenses which may not be affordable, in particular because the company is concerned with reducing production costs. In an extreme case, it is possible that the other factories are not capable of producing some of the non-drill-bit goods that are produced by the Cookville factory, which would make such a change prohibitive.

In order to jusfity the shift in production between the Cookville and other factories, additional information is required. The chief production manager should provide additional information about the other goods produced and the relative output/costs at each factory, along with the production processes and layouts to ensure that such a shift would be feasible, affordable, and meet the desired goal of reducing overall production costs. As it stands, the argument leaves out too many details to warrant shifting the production of all drill bits to and all other machine parts from the Cookville plant.

PrijitDebnath · Answer

Did you notice this line from the passage: the Cumquat Café, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s.

This actually suggests that it has already been more than year since Cumquat Café moved to this new location. Also, it seems that business was ok/good after moving, but has recently dropped.

So, if that's the case, we clearly cannot say that there is anything wrong with the new location. Clearly, someone else has changed "recently".

jonny1986 · Answer

Hmmm. I don't read it that way. I see the phrase "has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s" as implying that the volume of business at the new location is less than (how much, who knows?) it was at the old location.

PrijitDebnath · Answer

Passage says: Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there.

So, it is clear that time has elapsed since Hippocrene started functioning at the new location (perhaps 1 year +).

Also, there is difference between:

CC's volume of business has dropped "somewhat from the previous  year's

And

CC's volume of business has dropped "somewhat from the previous  years'

"year's" just means it is comparing one year back. So, I am thinking it is comparing CC's performance at the "new location" only (this year vs previous year).

Let's see what others have to say. Do you have an official explanation, by any chance?

jonny1986 · Answer

The argument states that Healthy Heart fitness center should lower membership fees to increase usage by its members, rather than installing expensive new features. This conclusion is based on the observation that usage did not significantly increase following the construction of an indoor pool. However, this observation is ambiguous, and does not adequately support the conclusion.

First, the argument provides no specific details about the usage before and after the construction of the pool; we only know that it did not increase significantly. This sort of language depends greatly on the discretion of the author, and could be misleading. Suppose, for instance, that prior to construction of the pool, usage was declining at a rate of 5% per month, and in the initial month after the pool opened, usage increased by 1% over the previous month. Taken in isolation, the 1% increase might be deemed "insignificant" by some, but in the larger context it certainly shows a break in the prior pattern, and thus could be deemed significant. In addition, the argument fails to disclose the amount of time elapsed since the pool was opened to members, and whether a concerted effort was made to inform members of its completion. If, for instance, the insignificant increase in usage was over a period of a few days after the pool opened, and no effort was made to inform members, it would be unreasonable to infer that expensive new features would not lead to an increase in usage.

Second, while the argument reccommends lowering membership fees to increase usage, it provides no evidence in support of this. At first glance, it seems unreasonable to assume that usage would increase if membership fees were lowered, since members would presumably pay those fees regardless of the usage (unless the "membership fees" mentioned are on a per-use basis). It is also possible that such an action could in fact decrease membership (and reduce the likelihood of increasing usage in the future), since many memberships are paid automatically and are "out of sight, out of mind." By decreasing membership fees, many who don't use the facilities might be reminded that they are still being charged, and cancel membership.

Finally, the argument offers no analysis of why usage at the fitness center declined prior to the construction of the pool. In order to effectively argue for particular remedy, one must be well informed of the possible reasons for the problem. In this case, perhaps membership declined due to the erosion in quality, due to age, of many of the fitness center's sports facilities. In that scenario, it would seem that by investing in an expensive new sports facility Healthy Heart might increase usage to prior levels.

In order to strengthen the argument that Healthy Heart should decrease membership fees rather than invest in expensive new features, additional information about the changes in membership before and after the construction of the pool would be neccessary, along with some reasoning regarding why the lowering of fees would increase usage. As it stands, the argument is insufficent.

jonny1986 · Answer

The argument states that organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming. This conclusion is based on the observation that famers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year saw a decline in crop yield, and the assumption that continued losses from relatively lower organic crop yields would outweigh the costs of investing in synthetic farming supplies and equipment. However, this line of reasoning is insufficient to warrant such a broad sweeping conclusion.

To begin, the author cites the fact that farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming saw a decline in crop yield. However, this language is somewhat ambiguous, as there is no indication of how severe the decline actually was; a 0.1% decline in yield could be considered statistical variance, whereas a 70% decline in yield might be cause for concern. Furthermore, there is no discussion of whether such declines are common in the first few years after new farming practices are adopted. Perhaps the plants need one or several cycles to reach full production capacity, regardless of method. In that case, switching back to synthetic from organic might actually prolong the decline in crop yields.

Next, the author acknowledges that many of the farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming believe it would be too expensive to switch back, but goes on to say that losses from lower crop yields would outweigh the costs associated with switching back. However, no evidence is provided to support this assumption. In fact, just because there was a decline in crop yields doesn't necessarily mean these farmers are experiencing losses. Organic crops often fetch a premium price from consumers, and the same margins can be realized with lower quantities. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is no evidence that the decline in crop yields will continue into the future.

Finally, the author makes the sweeping claim that orangic farmers should switch to synthetic farming. Note, this is not simply organic farmers who swtiched from synthetic last year (the population of the initial observation). Rather, this is a statement concerning all organic farmers. Despite this broad conclusion, the author provides no evidence that other organic farmers are experiencing losses or declines in yeilds. In addition, there is no discussion of the relative health of the organic and synthetic markets, and whether the shift of all organic farmers to synthetic farming would cause a glut in the synthetic market, driving down prices and causing significant losses.

In order to strengthen the argument presented, the author would need to provide more compelling evidence that organic farming is unprofitable enough relative to synthetic farming to warrant a shift. This evidence could include a more detailed analysis of market conditions, up-front and long-term costs, crop yields, etc, spanning multiple years. Also, the author would need to soften the apparent recommendation that all organic farmers should switch to synthetic, since it is extremely unlikely that any additional amount of information would warrant such an extreme conclusion. As it stands, the argument provides very little justification its current recommendation.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Looking for feedback on sample AWA essay

Score this response on a scale from 0 to 6

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards