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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
02 Oct 2023, 01:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Your Answer:
The argument states that "In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses". When stated this way, along with the evidences cited, the argument reveals an example of a leap of faith from logical reasoning. There exists a stark disconnect between the evidences presented and the conclusion of the argument, to an extent where the argument can be disregarded as a manipulation of truth. The conclusion relies on far-fetched assumptions, hence it is weak and lacking a logical flow.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes the difference in financial status of a vegetarian and a meat-based restaurant as conclusive evidence to make a claim regarding the change in dietary habits of an entire population. Simply because a non-vegetarian restaurant like the House of Beef is more successful than the vegetarian 'Good Earth Cafe', does not indicate anything about the food preferences of the people. There can be multiple factors behind the success of the former food joint, including quality/taste of food, ambience, size, brand name, and many others. Then again, it is still a stretch to assume that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires only because of the success of their eatery, and not other factors like generational wealth. Furthermore, the fact that the Heart's Delight store sells high-butterfat cheeses alongside organic fruits and whole grains, does not conclude anything about whether their customers prefer cheeses over grains or vegetables. Clearly, the evidence has a lot of loopholes with regards to the conclusion, unless certain more details are explicitly stated.
Finally, it can be asserted that the argument would have been much more substantiated and logical had there been answers to some of the following questions: 1. Has Heart's Delight always been selling cheeses alongside organic fruits and vegetables, or was these a recent addition in keeping with the demands of the time? 2. What are some of the distinguishing factors between Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef, other than their vegetarian or non-vegetarian feature?
With no convincing answers to the aforementioned questions, there is thus no substantive evidence to arrive at the conclusion stated in the argument. The argument is flawed for multiple reasons and full knowledge of the context is needed before drawing any kind of conclusion.
"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.
Your Answer:
The argument states that "In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses". When stated this way, along with the evidences cited, the argument reveals an example of a leap of faith from logical reasoning. There exists a stark disconnect between the evidences presented and the conclusion of the argument, to an extent where the argument can be disregarded as a manipulation of truth. The conclusion relies on far-fetched assumptions, hence it is weak and lacking a logical flow.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes the difference in financial status of a vegetarian and a meat-based restaurant as conclusive evidence to make a claim regarding the change in dietary habits of an entire population. Simply because a non-vegetarian restaurant like the House of Beef is more successful than the vegetarian 'Good Earth Cafe', does not indicate anything about the food preferences of the people. There can be multiple factors behind the success of the former food joint, including quality/taste of food, ambience, size, brand name, and many others. Then again, it is still a stretch to assume that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires only because of the success of their eatery, and not other factors like generational wealth. Furthermore, the fact that the Heart's Delight store sells high-butterfat cheeses alongside organic fruits and whole grains, does not conclude anything about whether their customers prefer cheeses over grains or vegetables. Clearly, the evidence has a lot of loopholes with regards to the conclusion, unless certain more details are explicitly stated.
Finally, it can be asserted that the argument would have been much more substantiated and logical had there been answers to some of the following questions: 1. Has Heart's Delight always been selling cheeses alongside organic fruits and vegetables, or was these a recent addition in keeping with the demands of the time? 2. What are some of the distinguishing factors between Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef, other than their vegetarian or non-vegetarian feature?
With no convincing answers to the aforementioned questions, there is thus no substantive evidence to arrive at the conclusion stated in the argument. The argument is flawed for multiple reasons and full knowledge of the context is needed before drawing any kind of conclusion.
02 Oct 2023, 07:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity (5.5/6):
Your essay is generally well-structured and coherent. It follows a logical progression, with clear introductory and concluding paragraphs. You effectively connect your ideas and arguments within the essay, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.
Word Structure (5/6):
Your use of language is clear and mostly precise, with good word choices. There are a few minor instances where sentence structure could be further improved for clarity.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5.5/6):
You have a clear paragraph structure, with each paragraph focusing on a specific point or aspect of the argument. Your paragraphs are well-formed and generally contain a topic sentence followed by supporting details.
Language and Grammar (5.5/6):
Your essay demonstrates a strong command of grammar and language usage. There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrases, but they do not significantly detract from the overall clarity of your writing.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5.5/6):
Your vocabulary choices are appropriate and contribute to the overall clarity and effectiveness of your essay. You use a variety of vocabulary, which enhances the quality of your writing.
Overall, your essay is well-structured, coherent, and effectively analyzes the argument's weaknesses. It demonstrates a strong command of language and grammar, with only minor room for improvement in sentence structure and vocabulary. Your critique of the argument's assumptions and evidence is clear and well-reasoned.
Coherence and Connectivity (5.5/6):
Your essay is generally well-structured and coherent. It follows a logical progression, with clear introductory and concluding paragraphs. You effectively connect your ideas and arguments within the essay, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.
Word Structure (5/6):
Your use of language is clear and mostly precise, with good word choices. There are a few minor instances where sentence structure could be further improved for clarity.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5.5/6):
You have a clear paragraph structure, with each paragraph focusing on a specific point or aspect of the argument. Your paragraphs are well-formed and generally contain a topic sentence followed by supporting details.
Language and Grammar (5.5/6):
Your essay demonstrates a strong command of grammar and language usage. There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrases, but they do not significantly detract from the overall clarity of your writing.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5.5/6):
Your vocabulary choices are appropriate and contribute to the overall clarity and effectiveness of your essay. You use a variety of vocabulary, which enhances the quality of your writing.
Overall, your essay is well-structured, coherent, and effectively analyzes the argument's weaknesses. It demonstrates a strong command of language and grammar, with only minor room for improvement in sentence structure and vocabulary. Your critique of the argument's assumptions and evidence is clear and well-reasoned.
NosyNocturnal
Moderator:
