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 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
14 Jul 2023, 05:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey guys! Would be really grateful if some expert could evaluate this attempt. Thank you:)
“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”
The argument claims that the readership of The Mercury has gone down because of the circulation of a competing lower priced newspaper, The Bugle and that the best way to recover from this situation is for The Mercury to lower its prices below that of The Bugle. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. It fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence rendering the argument unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes a causal relationship between the circulation of a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle and the decline in readership of The Mercury. It fails to acknowledge that The Mercury may have lost readers due to other factors such as circulation of fake news, low coverage of pertinent issues or loss of goodwill. The price of the newspapers may have nothing to do with the sales level. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there were no other factors that could have led to decreased sales.
Second, the argument claims that the best way for The Mercury to increase its readership is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as it rests on the assumption that lower the price of the newspaper, more the readership. It also assumes that the pricing strategy that worked for The Bugle will also work for The Mercury. The argument overlooks the possibility that The Bugle may attract readers because of its high quality of articles and that readers may not switch to The Mercury even if it reduces it price. If the argument had provided evidence that the readers consider nothing but price as the sole factor for purchasing a newspaper, then the argument would have been convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that the increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper. This statement is a stretch as it is not supplemented by relevant data. There is no way to prove the causal relationship assumed in the argument. Without sufficient data to back this up, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts discussed above. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the author should have provided sufficient evidence to solidify the causal relationship between the price of a newspaper and its level of readership. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”
The argument claims that the readership of The Mercury has gone down because of the circulation of a competing lower priced newspaper, The Bugle and that the best way to recover from this situation is for The Mercury to lower its prices below that of The Bugle. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. It fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence rendering the argument unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes a causal relationship between the circulation of a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle and the decline in readership of The Mercury. It fails to acknowledge that The Mercury may have lost readers due to other factors such as circulation of fake news, low coverage of pertinent issues or loss of goodwill. The price of the newspapers may have nothing to do with the sales level. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there were no other factors that could have led to decreased sales.
Second, the argument claims that the best way for The Mercury to increase its readership is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as it rests on the assumption that lower the price of the newspaper, more the readership. It also assumes that the pricing strategy that worked for The Bugle will also work for The Mercury. The argument overlooks the possibility that The Bugle may attract readers because of its high quality of articles and that readers may not switch to The Mercury even if it reduces it price. If the argument had provided evidence that the readers consider nothing but price as the sole factor for purchasing a newspaper, then the argument would have been convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that the increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper. This statement is a stretch as it is not supplemented by relevant data. There is no way to prove the causal relationship assumed in the argument. Without sufficient data to back this up, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts discussed above. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the author should have provided sufficient evidence to solidify the causal relationship between the price of a newspaper and its level of readership. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
14 Jul 2023, 15:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5
The essay demonstrates a good level of coherence and connectivity. The ideas are logically organized and presented in a clear manner. The essay effectively connects the different points made and maintains a coherent line of reasoning throughout.
Word structure: 6
The word structure is excellent. The essay uses a varied and sophisticated vocabulary, employing appropriate and precise language to convey the intended meaning. The sentences are well-constructed and demonstrate a strong command of grammar and syntax.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5
The paragraph structure is generally well-formed, with each paragraph addressing a specific point or aspect of the argument. The essay presents a clear introduction and conclusion. However, there could have been more development within each paragraph to further strengthen the analysis and provide more depth to the argument.
Language and grammar: 5.5
The language and grammar usage are strong overall. The essay effectively communicates ideas with proper sentence structure and grammatical accuracy. However, there are a few instances where minor improvements could be made to enhance the fluency and clarity of expression.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6
The vocabulary and word expression are excellent. The essay employs a wide range of vocabulary, using precise and appropriate terms to convey the intended meaning. The language is sophisticated and demonstrates a strong grasp of word choice and expression.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a well-reasoned analysis with coherent arguments, effective use of evidence, and strong language skills. It effectively critiques the given argument, highlighting its weaknesses and providing alternative perspectives. The essay would benefit from slightly stronger paragraph development and minor improvements in language and grammar usage.
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5
The essay demonstrates a good level of coherence and connectivity. The ideas are logically organized and presented in a clear manner. The essay effectively connects the different points made and maintains a coherent line of reasoning throughout.
Word structure: 6
The word structure is excellent. The essay uses a varied and sophisticated vocabulary, employing appropriate and precise language to convey the intended meaning. The sentences are well-constructed and demonstrate a strong command of grammar and syntax.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5
The paragraph structure is generally well-formed, with each paragraph addressing a specific point or aspect of the argument. The essay presents a clear introduction and conclusion. However, there could have been more development within each paragraph to further strengthen the analysis and provide more depth to the argument.
Language and grammar: 5.5
The language and grammar usage are strong overall. The essay effectively communicates ideas with proper sentence structure and grammatical accuracy. However, there are a few instances where minor improvements could be made to enhance the fluency and clarity of expression.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6
The vocabulary and word expression are excellent. The essay employs a wide range of vocabulary, using precise and appropriate terms to convey the intended meaning. The language is sophisticated and demonstrates a strong grasp of word choice and expression.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a well-reasoned analysis with coherent arguments, effective use of evidence, and strong language skills. It effectively critiques the given argument, highlighting its weaknesses and providing alternative perspectives. The essay would benefit from slightly stronger paragraph development and minor improvements in language and grammar usage.
SreyaSanghai
Moderator:
