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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
06 Jul 2022, 11:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt: "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 of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.'"
My answer: "The above argument is based on the premise that people are not as concerned about consuming red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a year ago. From this, it draws the conclusion that this lack of concern contributes to the introduction of fatty cheeses at Heart's delight and the modest living made by Good Earth cafe's owners. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the argument makes an unwarranted connection between the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and the choice of products offered by Heart's delight. It fails to consider the possibility that the people who consume more of red meat and fatty cheeses do so because they consume healthier foods that balance out their intake of these seemingly unhealthy products. It could also be that the people in question have a demanding excercise regimen that requires them to consume more calories than they normally would. Furthermore, the argument simply mentions that Heart's delight offers fatty products. It never once mentions how the sales of these products have been performing compared to their organic fruits and vegetables. If such information were made available, it would perhaps provide a stronger case for correlating fatty intake with the introduction of similar products in Heart's delight.
Another flaw in the argument is that it uses vague language to make its point. For example, it mentions that the owners of Good Earth cafe make a "modest" living, but never once attempts to lay down what a modest living implies. Moreover, the argument here talks about the owners of the business, and not the business itself. Perhaps the owners of Good Earth Cafe choose to take home a modest income so that a significant portion of the profits could be apportioned toward expanding the business. If we assume that the revenue generated by Good Earth cafe far exceeds what the House of Beef generates, and that the owners of House of Beef withdraw a large chunk of the business revenue for themselves, such an assumption would call into question the conclusion the article is attempting to make.
Lastly, the argument does not specify the sample population used by it to arrive at the conclusion that "people in general" do not concern themselves with regulating fatty intake. If the sample, were, say, restricted to a very small portion of the town, this would not be good enough grounds for the argument to generalize a set of assumptions about the populace as a whole. Furthermore, it only talks about three stores. Even if the argument's premises logically led to the conclusion it draws therefrom, it is very likely that such conclusions hold good only for these stores, which would then be considered outliers.
To conclude, vague language and a weak connection between the premise and the conclusion mean that the argument is flawed. For the aforementioned reasons, the argument lacks persuasiveness."
Posted from my mobile device
'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 of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.'"
My answer: "The above argument is based on the premise that people are not as concerned about consuming red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a year ago. From this, it draws the conclusion that this lack of concern contributes to the introduction of fatty cheeses at Heart's delight and the modest living made by Good Earth cafe's owners. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the argument makes an unwarranted connection between the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and the choice of products offered by Heart's delight. It fails to consider the possibility that the people who consume more of red meat and fatty cheeses do so because they consume healthier foods that balance out their intake of these seemingly unhealthy products. It could also be that the people in question have a demanding excercise regimen that requires them to consume more calories than they normally would. Furthermore, the argument simply mentions that Heart's delight offers fatty products. It never once mentions how the sales of these products have been performing compared to their organic fruits and vegetables. If such information were made available, it would perhaps provide a stronger case for correlating fatty intake with the introduction of similar products in Heart's delight.
Another flaw in the argument is that it uses vague language to make its point. For example, it mentions that the owners of Good Earth cafe make a "modest" living, but never once attempts to lay down what a modest living implies. Moreover, the argument here talks about the owners of the business, and not the business itself. Perhaps the owners of Good Earth Cafe choose to take home a modest income so that a significant portion of the profits could be apportioned toward expanding the business. If we assume that the revenue generated by Good Earth cafe far exceeds what the House of Beef generates, and that the owners of House of Beef withdraw a large chunk of the business revenue for themselves, such an assumption would call into question the conclusion the article is attempting to make.
Lastly, the argument does not specify the sample population used by it to arrive at the conclusion that "people in general" do not concern themselves with regulating fatty intake. If the sample, were, say, restricted to a very small portion of the town, this would not be good enough grounds for the argument to generalize a set of assumptions about the populace as a whole. Furthermore, it only talks about three stores. Even if the argument's premises logically led to the conclusion it draws therefrom, it is very likely that such conclusions hold good only for these stores, which would then be considered outliers.
To conclude, vague language and a weak connection between the premise and the conclusion mean that the argument is flawed. For the aforementioned reasons, the argument lacks persuasiveness."
Posted from my mobile device
Moderator:
