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!
02 Sep 2023, 05:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, Kindly rate my response to AWA question in Practice mock test - 2.
"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 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 Cafe, 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 essay:
The aforementioned argument, in assisting that people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, appears at first glance to be fairly convincing. However, on further examination of argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident in its reasoning. The most pivotal shortcomings of argument are its inability of address or even acknowledge its underlying assumptions and lack of sufficient information to substantiate its claim.
First of all, the argument, based on observations of limited sample size i.e. three restaurants, attempts a hasty generalization to claim that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of high fat content. For such a claim to be made, author should have supplemented his claim with relevant data about average fat intake of people in general now compared to a decade ago. Also, the observations based on these food outlets may not hold true for people in general as well.
Second of all, author assumes wide selection of cheeses available in Heart's Delight means people are not concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. This may not be true, as there may be another reasons for Heart's Delight to offer wide range of cheese. It may be possible that due to this factor, people who are concerned about their fat intake but still consume fat below designated limit may find Heart's Delight an attractive choice compared to restaurants who don't offer these fatty cheeses.
Further, argument relates modest living of Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restuarant, to them not providing fatty cheeses to their customers. It may not be the case, as their may be several other reasons as to why Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, which the argument does not include. Some of possible factors of modest income generated by this cafe might include sub-standard service to its customers, inferior quality of food compared to other restuarants or poor seating etc.
Moreover, argument attributes financial success of Owners of House of Beef to them offering red meat and fatty cheeses. This may not be true as well, since there may be multiple reasons for their financial success. The argument should have provided financial performance metrics of House of Beef which relates them to their offering of red meat and fatty cheeses. The information regarding operation of these three restaurants, their revenue, their installed seating capacity and quality of offered food should be included in the argument to be in better position to blame people for not being concerned about their fat intake.
The assumption that if people eat high fat content food then they are not concerned about their fat intake is too far fetched. It may be the case that, people are concerned about their fat intake and still they consume this fat in limited qunatity. This assumption is not well founded from the facts given in the argument.
The argument, in its given form, contains a considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address these defects, both its persuasive ability and legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization with overreaching assumptions and lack of sufficient information.
Sajjad1994
"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 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 Cafe, 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 essay:
The aforementioned argument, in assisting that people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, appears at first glance to be fairly convincing. However, on further examination of argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident in its reasoning. The most pivotal shortcomings of argument are its inability of address or even acknowledge its underlying assumptions and lack of sufficient information to substantiate its claim.
First of all, the argument, based on observations of limited sample size i.e. three restaurants, attempts a hasty generalization to claim that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of high fat content. For such a claim to be made, author should have supplemented his claim with relevant data about average fat intake of people in general now compared to a decade ago. Also, the observations based on these food outlets may not hold true for people in general as well.
Second of all, author assumes wide selection of cheeses available in Heart's Delight means people are not concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. This may not be true, as there may be another reasons for Heart's Delight to offer wide range of cheese. It may be possible that due to this factor, people who are concerned about their fat intake but still consume fat below designated limit may find Heart's Delight an attractive choice compared to restaurants who don't offer these fatty cheeses.
Further, argument relates modest living of Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restuarant, to them not providing fatty cheeses to their customers. It may not be the case, as their may be several other reasons as to why Good Earth Cafe makes a modest living, which the argument does not include. Some of possible factors of modest income generated by this cafe might include sub-standard service to its customers, inferior quality of food compared to other restuarants or poor seating etc.
Moreover, argument attributes financial success of Owners of House of Beef to them offering red meat and fatty cheeses. This may not be true as well, since there may be multiple reasons for their financial success. The argument should have provided financial performance metrics of House of Beef which relates them to their offering of red meat and fatty cheeses. The information regarding operation of these three restaurants, their revenue, their installed seating capacity and quality of offered food should be included in the argument to be in better position to blame people for not being concerned about their fat intake.
The assumption that if people eat high fat content food then they are not concerned about their fat intake is too far fetched. It may be the case that, people are concerned about their fat intake and still they consume this fat in limited qunatity. This assumption is not well founded from the facts given in the argument.
The argument, in its given form, contains a considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address these defects, both its persuasive ability and legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization with overreaching assumptions and lack of sufficient information.
Sajjad1994
05 Sep 2023, 08:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity (4.5/6):
The essay generally maintains coherence and connectivity throughout its analysis of the argument. It starts with an introduction that sets the stage for the critique and follows a logical progression in discussing the flaws. However, there is room for improvement in the transitions between points and paragraphs to make the essay flow more smoothly.
Word Structure (5/6):
The essay demonstrates a strong command of word structure, using a wide range of vocabulary effectively. Sentences are well-structured, and the writer conveys their ideas clearly. There are a few minor issues with sentence structure and word choice, but they do not significantly detract from the overall quality of writing.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5/6):
The essay uses appropriate paragraph structure and formation, with clear topic sentences and supporting details in each paragraph. However, there are some instances where the essay could benefit from stronger transitions between paragraphs to enhance the overall structure.
Language and Grammar (5.5/6):
The essay generally exhibits strong language and grammar usage. There are only a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings. The sentence structure is mostly correct and contributes to the clarity of the essay's arguments.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5/6):
The essay uses a varied vocabulary and effective word expression to convey its points. It avoids repetition and adds depth to the analysis. However, a few sentences could benefit from more precise and concise language to enhance clarity further.
Overall, this essay provides a well-reasoned critique of the argument, addressing its flaws effectively. It demonstrates a good command of language and structure, with some room for minor improvements in coherence.
Coherence and Connectivity (4.5/6):
The essay generally maintains coherence and connectivity throughout its analysis of the argument. It starts with an introduction that sets the stage for the critique and follows a logical progression in discussing the flaws. However, there is room for improvement in the transitions between points and paragraphs to make the essay flow more smoothly.
Word Structure (5/6):
The essay demonstrates a strong command of word structure, using a wide range of vocabulary effectively. Sentences are well-structured, and the writer conveys their ideas clearly. There are a few minor issues with sentence structure and word choice, but they do not significantly detract from the overall quality of writing.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5/6):
The essay uses appropriate paragraph structure and formation, with clear topic sentences and supporting details in each paragraph. However, there are some instances where the essay could benefit from stronger transitions between paragraphs to enhance the overall structure.
Language and Grammar (5.5/6):
The essay generally exhibits strong language and grammar usage. There are only a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings. The sentence structure is mostly correct and contributes to the clarity of the essay's arguments.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5/6):
The essay uses a varied vocabulary and effective word expression to convey its points. It avoids repetition and adds depth to the analysis. However, a few sentences could benefit from more precise and concise language to enhance clarity further.
Overall, this essay provides a well-reasoned critique of the argument, addressing its flaws effectively. It demonstrates a good command of language and structure, with some room for minor improvements in coherence.
walterwhite756
Moderator:
