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 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.
21 Nov 2022, 06:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question
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."
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.
Answer:
The argument claims that people are no longer as concerned as they were about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. It based its conclusion on two premises: the first is that the Heart's Delight store which previously started selling organic fruits and vegetables now sells a wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The second premise is that the owners of House of Beef are richer than the owners of Good Earth Cafe. This argument manipulates the facts and presented a distorted view of what people choose to consume. It fails to mention several other factors that could be responsible for the observation drawn from the two premises. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions without clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak and unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people are no longer concerned about their intake of meat and fatty cheeses. This assumption is a stretch as it fails to consider demographic, geographical and health differences before coming to a hasty generalization. For example, the argument fails to mention the specific category of people who are no longer concerned about their intake of fat. Clearly, without this specificity, it will be difficult to reach the conclusion that people are no longer concerned about their diets. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly specify the category of people who are not concerned about their health.
Second, the argument claims that Heart's Delight store having a wide selection of cheeses with high butterfat content is an evidence to support the argument that people now consume a lot read meat and fatty cheeses. This again is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the store inventory and the level of demand for such inventory. While the author might assume that there is a correlation here, there could be a lot of reasons the store will store up a variety of cheese. For example, the store could have repurposed itself from serving customers who need organic fruits and vegetables to customers who want cheese. If the argument had provided evidence that the availability of a wide selection of cheese is due to the increase in demand across all categories of customers, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Thirdly, the argument makes another assumption that because the owners of the new House of Beef are richer than the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, then there are more demands for beef and by extension that people are consuming it more. This fails to consider a range of other factors that could be responsible for the wealth of the owners of the House of Beef. Were the owners wealthy before starting this new restaurant? What other businesses do they own? Do they sell other inventory aside from Beef?
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons stated and therefore not convincing. The argument could be strengthen if the author provides all the relevant facts. In order to understand if people are concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and flawed.
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."
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.
Answer:
The argument claims that people are no longer as concerned as they were about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. It based its conclusion on two premises: the first is that the Heart's Delight store which previously started selling organic fruits and vegetables now sells a wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The second premise is that the owners of House of Beef are richer than the owners of Good Earth Cafe. This argument manipulates the facts and presented a distorted view of what people choose to consume. It fails to mention several other factors that could be responsible for the observation drawn from the two premises. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions without clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak and unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people are no longer concerned about their intake of meat and fatty cheeses. This assumption is a stretch as it fails to consider demographic, geographical and health differences before coming to a hasty generalization. For example, the argument fails to mention the specific category of people who are no longer concerned about their intake of fat. Clearly, without this specificity, it will be difficult to reach the conclusion that people are no longer concerned about their diets. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly specify the category of people who are not concerned about their health.
Second, the argument claims that Heart's Delight store having a wide selection of cheeses with high butterfat content is an evidence to support the argument that people now consume a lot read meat and fatty cheeses. This again is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the store inventory and the level of demand for such inventory. While the author might assume that there is a correlation here, there could be a lot of reasons the store will store up a variety of cheese. For example, the store could have repurposed itself from serving customers who need organic fruits and vegetables to customers who want cheese. If the argument had provided evidence that the availability of a wide selection of cheese is due to the increase in demand across all categories of customers, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Thirdly, the argument makes another assumption that because the owners of the new House of Beef are richer than the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, then there are more demands for beef and by extension that people are consuming it more. This fails to consider a range of other factors that could be responsible for the wealth of the owners of the House of Beef. Were the owners wealthy before starting this new restaurant? What other businesses do they own? Do they sell other inventory aside from Beef?
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons stated and therefore not convincing. The argument could be strengthen if the author provides all the relevant facts. In order to understand if people are concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and flawed.
21 Nov 2022, 11:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
Olummy25
Updated on: 26 Jan 2023, 19:55
Originally posted by gmatlearner05 on 26 Jan 2023, 19:06.
Last edited by gmatlearner05 on 26 Jan 2023, 19:55, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by gmatlearner05 on 26 Jan 2023, 19:55, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sajjad1994 please rate take on the question.
The argument states that people are not as concerned about their red meat and fatty cheese intake as they were a decade ago. Stated this was the argument fails to mention several key factors basis which the argument can be evaluated. Author compares a new Beef house with an organic product store and a vegetarian restaurant and with this comparison concludes the claim, but this comparison is not mutually exclusive. The conclusion is based on assumptions which have no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has many flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes that if people are not purchasing from ‘Heart’s Delight’, the organic product store and ‘Good Earth’, a vegetarian restaurant, then they are eating more red meat and fatty cheese. This statement is stretch as it is not the right parameter to understand if people are consuming more red meat. For example, people might be going to other vegetarian restaurant or buying fruits and vegetables from other stores for various factors like bad taste, inadequate quality, high price, etc. Moreover, if people are regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, they might get fruits and vegetables from a normal grocery store rather than a organic store. The argument would have been more convincing if it provided explicit evidence that Heart’s delight is the only vegetable and fruit store in the town and Good earth is the only vegetarian restaurant.
Secondly, the argument claims that since the Beef house owners are millionaires, it means that people are eating more red meat. This is again a weak and unsupported claim, as the author fails to demonstrate any correlation between owners of meat stores getting rich and people eating more red meat. For example, the profit margin on the meat could be higher than the quantity of meat sold, or a small population of people could be eating a larger quantity of meat. In fact, it is not at all clear if the owners of the meat store have any other business or if they became rich because of other factors like ancestral wealth. If the argument would have provided evidence that the owners of the meat store got rich because of the meat store or if there were a larger number of people buying red meat, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to mention if there were changes in the population of the said place. If the population of the area was increased than again their can be increase demand of the consumption of red meat as 100% of the population cannot be vegetarian, unless for a specific region. The argument also fails to mention why in the first place the people decided to reduce their intake of red meat. Without answers to the above questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiated evidence. Thus the argument has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned factors and hence it is unconvincing. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if the author provided some more evidence and facts. To analyze the merits of a situation one needs to have complete knowledge of all the relevant factors involved, in this particular case, knowledge about owners other businesses, the change in the population of the area, why people wanted to reduce their intake of red meat and fatty cheese and many others. Without answers to these questions, the argument is unsubstantiated and hence open to debate.
The argument states that people are not as concerned about their red meat and fatty cheese intake as they were a decade ago. Stated this was the argument fails to mention several key factors basis which the argument can be evaluated. Author compares a new Beef house with an organic product store and a vegetarian restaurant and with this comparison concludes the claim, but this comparison is not mutually exclusive. The conclusion is based on assumptions which have no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has many flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes that if people are not purchasing from ‘Heart’s Delight’, the organic product store and ‘Good Earth’, a vegetarian restaurant, then they are eating more red meat and fatty cheese. This statement is stretch as it is not the right parameter to understand if people are consuming more red meat. For example, people might be going to other vegetarian restaurant or buying fruits and vegetables from other stores for various factors like bad taste, inadequate quality, high price, etc. Moreover, if people are regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, they might get fruits and vegetables from a normal grocery store rather than a organic store. The argument would have been more convincing if it provided explicit evidence that Heart’s delight is the only vegetable and fruit store in the town and Good earth is the only vegetarian restaurant.
Secondly, the argument claims that since the Beef house owners are millionaires, it means that people are eating more red meat. This is again a weak and unsupported claim, as the author fails to demonstrate any correlation between owners of meat stores getting rich and people eating more red meat. For example, the profit margin on the meat could be higher than the quantity of meat sold, or a small population of people could be eating a larger quantity of meat. In fact, it is not at all clear if the owners of the meat store have any other business or if they became rich because of other factors like ancestral wealth. If the argument would have provided evidence that the owners of the meat store got rich because of the meat store or if there were a larger number of people buying red meat, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to mention if there were changes in the population of the said place. If the population of the area was increased than again their can be increase demand of the consumption of red meat as 100% of the population cannot be vegetarian, unless for a specific region. The argument also fails to mention why in the first place the people decided to reduce their intake of red meat. Without answers to the above questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiated evidence. Thus the argument has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned factors and hence it is unconvincing. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if the author provided some more evidence and facts. To analyze the merits of a situation one needs to have complete knowledge of all the relevant factors involved, in this particular case, knowledge about owners other businesses, the change in the population of the area, why people wanted to reduce their intake of red meat and fatty cheese and many others. Without answers to these questions, the argument is unsubstantiated and hence open to debate.
