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 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 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.
01 Apr 2017, 08:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm.
“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... etc.
The argument that the company should consider transferring its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee is flawed. In this essay, I will discuss the reasoning behind this argument that was presented in the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm and show why it is logically unsound.
One underlying assumption of the argument is that it compares the average coffee drinker's consumption to that of the average cola drinker without stating any supporting numerical data such as, what is the actual average consumption of each drink or how many people consume each drink. This assumption is not valid since it is plausible that, for example, cola consumption at a young age is 5 cups a day and it decreases to 3 cups a day. Whereas, coffee consumption at a young age is 1 cup a day and it increases to 3 cups a day. More significantly, the number of people who drink cola is bigger than that who drink coffee. The argument would be made stronger if it provided information regarding the actual consumption of the two drinks.
Another invalid assumption is that no information regarding the success of the specific brands of Cola Loca or Early Bird Coffee is given. The flaw here is that the author ignores the possibility that Cola Loca is the market leader in cola, with more than a 50 percent market share, while Early Bird Coffee is an unknown coffee brand with less than 1 percent market share. One way of improving the argument is to provide detailed information regarding these companies.
Finally, the author assumes that the consumption trend will continue in the future based on historical information. But the author has not provided us with any evidence to support this assumption and has left many questions unanswered. What if cola consumption will increase as the drink becomes healthier? Also, what if younger consumers will prefer cola over coffee in the future? Without, decisive answers to these pertinent questions, one is left with the impression that this assumption is grounded more in wishful thinking than in substantive facts.
The flaws detailed above suggest that the conclusion presented in the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm may not be logically drawn. Therefore, it is evident that the line of reasoning is neither sound nor convincing.
“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... etc.
The argument that the company should consider transferring its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee is flawed. In this essay, I will discuss the reasoning behind this argument that was presented in the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm and show why it is logically unsound.
One underlying assumption of the argument is that it compares the average coffee drinker's consumption to that of the average cola drinker without stating any supporting numerical data such as, what is the actual average consumption of each drink or how many people consume each drink. This assumption is not valid since it is plausible that, for example, cola consumption at a young age is 5 cups a day and it decreases to 3 cups a day. Whereas, coffee consumption at a young age is 1 cup a day and it increases to 3 cups a day. More significantly, the number of people who drink cola is bigger than that who drink coffee. The argument would be made stronger if it provided information regarding the actual consumption of the two drinks.
Another invalid assumption is that no information regarding the success of the specific brands of Cola Loca or Early Bird Coffee is given. The flaw here is that the author ignores the possibility that Cola Loca is the market leader in cola, with more than a 50 percent market share, while Early Bird Coffee is an unknown coffee brand with less than 1 percent market share. One way of improving the argument is to provide detailed information regarding these companies.
Finally, the author assumes that the consumption trend will continue in the future based on historical information. But the author has not provided us with any evidence to support this assumption and has left many questions unanswered. What if cola consumption will increase as the drink becomes healthier? Also, what if younger consumers will prefer cola over coffee in the future? Without, decisive answers to these pertinent questions, one is left with the impression that this assumption is grounded more in wishful thinking than in substantive facts.
The flaws detailed above suggest that the conclusion presented in the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm may not be logically drawn. Therefore, it is evident that the line of reasoning is neither sound nor convincing.
04 Apr 2017, 06:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
A nice one. I know nothing about AWA grading, so I'll skip on that.
things I noticed:
Word count might have been higher
I like how you use 'logic' terminology and in general more complex language than that of usual templates
No significant grammar errors but if you have tie to check try to apply your SC skills:
Finally, the author assumes that the consumption trend will continue in the future based on historical information.
based incorrectly modifies future here :D
things I noticed:
Word count might have been higher
I like how you use 'logic' terminology and in general more complex language than that of usual templates
No significant grammar errors but if you have tie to check try to apply your SC skills:
Finally, the author assumes that the consumption trend will continue in the future based on historical information.
based incorrectly modifies future here :D
20 Jan 2021, 09:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello,
It would be great if someone could help me grade this. This is my 1st attempt at writing an AWA essay.
Thanks
Question:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper: “Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Analysis:
In the editorial piece, the author argues that the transit company should reduce the bus fares or increase the price of parking in order to increase commuter use. This argument is substantially flawed. The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.
The argument says that the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to subway stations is below projected volumes. The question over here would be how much less is it in actuality? Is it negligible, for example : the projected volumes would be somewhere around 500,000 and the actual number is somewhere around 490,000. The lack of clarity around the same makes it difficult to understand whether an actual change is required or not.
Furthermore, the argument makes a comparison between only two modes of transport i.e driving a personal vehicle and shuttle buses. It fails to even consider other modes of transportation like : a taxi, cycling, walking or even skate boarding. For example : In a city like New York most people just walk to the subway station because of close proximity. If there was any data that suggested that a major chunk of the subway commuters drove to work then that would have helped strengthen the argument.
On the basis of a faulty assumption that most people drive to the subway station, the author has come up with two solutions namely : reduce shuttle bus prices and increase parking prices. How will reducing shuttle bus prices actually help if the quality of shuttle buses are bad. People might be preferring to drive to subway stations because it is convenient to them so a decrease or increase in prices might not affect them so much. Also, what if the purchasing power of the people driving is high and can afford to pay the extra price.
The argument is filled with numerous flaws but with the right data it could be strengthened. If there was enough information on the way people travelled to subway stations then it would help in strengthening the argument. We don’t really have that data and without that it would become difficult to give any sort of solution.
The argument is neither sound nor persuasive enough. The writer fails to provide any compelling reasons for the transit company to bring about any sort of change to its current mode of operation in terms of the bus shuttles fares and subway parking.
It would be great if someone could help me grade this. This is my 1st attempt at writing an AWA essay.
Thanks
Question:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper: “Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Analysis:
In the editorial piece, the author argues that the transit company should reduce the bus fares or increase the price of parking in order to increase commuter use. This argument is substantially flawed. The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.
The argument says that the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to subway stations is below projected volumes. The question over here would be how much less is it in actuality? Is it negligible, for example : the projected volumes would be somewhere around 500,000 and the actual number is somewhere around 490,000. The lack of clarity around the same makes it difficult to understand whether an actual change is required or not.
Furthermore, the argument makes a comparison between only two modes of transport i.e driving a personal vehicle and shuttle buses. It fails to even consider other modes of transportation like : a taxi, cycling, walking or even skate boarding. For example : In a city like New York most people just walk to the subway station because of close proximity. If there was any data that suggested that a major chunk of the subway commuters drove to work then that would have helped strengthen the argument.
On the basis of a faulty assumption that most people drive to the subway station, the author has come up with two solutions namely : reduce shuttle bus prices and increase parking prices. How will reducing shuttle bus prices actually help if the quality of shuttle buses are bad. People might be preferring to drive to subway stations because it is convenient to them so a decrease or increase in prices might not affect them so much. Also, what if the purchasing power of the people driving is high and can afford to pay the extra price.
The argument is filled with numerous flaws but with the right data it could be strengthened. If there was enough information on the way people travelled to subway stations then it would help in strengthening the argument. We don’t really have that data and without that it would become difficult to give any sort of solution.
The argument is neither sound nor persuasive enough. The writer fails to provide any compelling reasons for the transit company to bring about any sort of change to its current mode of operation in terms of the bus shuttles fares and subway parking.
