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 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 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 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.
16 Nov 2023, 11:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks in advance for evaluating my essay!
The following appeared in an article in a consumer-products magazine:
“Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, AcidEase and Pepticaid, are now available in milder nonprescription forms. Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.”
My answer:
The argument claims that people who need an effective nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease. Stated in this way, it fails to consider several important factors that could call the conclusion into question and rests on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Thus, the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument assumes that there are no significant differences between Acid-Ease and Pepticaid. This is a stretch because many factors could have caused the discrepancy in the number of prescriptions written. The argument fails to consider the context of the medications’ respective releases. For example, if Acid-Ease was released years before Pepticaid, then it would make sense that there have been more prescriptions of Acid-Ease written. Additionally, it’s possible that they are sold at significantly different prices, which would affect patients’ purchasing decisions. Doctors may have been incentivized to prescribe Acid-Ease over Pepticaid as well. Without information that confirms any of these possibilities, the fact alone that more prescriptions of Acid-Ease have been written is not convincing at all.
Second, the argument is using evidence about the prescription strength versions of the drugs to draw a conclusion about the milder, nonprescription strength version of the drugs. This is a risky and questionable extrapolation to make because the nonprescription and prescription versions may differ in unknown ways. While more prescriptions of strength Acid-Ease have been written, nonprescription Acid-Ease may not be as effective or favored by users. If the argument had provided evidence, such as from clinical trials, about whether specifically the nonprescription version of Acid-Ease was indeed better than that of Pepticaid based on the most relevant and holistic metrics, the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the argument is evaluating the nonprescription strength Acid-Ease in a bubble. It’s comparing Acid-Ease only to Pepticaid when there may be other competitive brands of nonprescription stomach relief medication. If these products from other brands exist, the argument’s comparison of the brands is incomplete and its conclusion that Acid-Ease is the best is thus unconvincing and biased because the playing field for a “fair” assessment of the brands was unfair from the start.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of faulty evidence that is used to support the conclusion and because of jumps in logic that leave many possibilities open. If the argument had drawn upon the examples and evidence as suggested, these flaws could have been corrected. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared in an article in a consumer-products magazine:
“Two of today’s best-selling brands of full-strength prescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid, AcidEase and Pepticaid, are now available in milder nonprescription forms. Doctors have written 76 million more prescriptions for full-strength Acid-Ease than for full-strength Pepticaid. So people who need an effective but milder nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease.”
My answer:
The argument claims that people who need an effective nonprescription medication for the relief of excess stomach acid should choose Acid-Ease. Stated in this way, it fails to consider several important factors that could call the conclusion into question and rests on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Thus, the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument assumes that there are no significant differences between Acid-Ease and Pepticaid. This is a stretch because many factors could have caused the discrepancy in the number of prescriptions written. The argument fails to consider the context of the medications’ respective releases. For example, if Acid-Ease was released years before Pepticaid, then it would make sense that there have been more prescriptions of Acid-Ease written. Additionally, it’s possible that they are sold at significantly different prices, which would affect patients’ purchasing decisions. Doctors may have been incentivized to prescribe Acid-Ease over Pepticaid as well. Without information that confirms any of these possibilities, the fact alone that more prescriptions of Acid-Ease have been written is not convincing at all.
Second, the argument is using evidence about the prescription strength versions of the drugs to draw a conclusion about the milder, nonprescription strength version of the drugs. This is a risky and questionable extrapolation to make because the nonprescription and prescription versions may differ in unknown ways. While more prescriptions of strength Acid-Ease have been written, nonprescription Acid-Ease may not be as effective or favored by users. If the argument had provided evidence, such as from clinical trials, about whether specifically the nonprescription version of Acid-Ease was indeed better than that of Pepticaid based on the most relevant and holistic metrics, the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the argument is evaluating the nonprescription strength Acid-Ease in a bubble. It’s comparing Acid-Ease only to Pepticaid when there may be other competitive brands of nonprescription stomach relief medication. If these products from other brands exist, the argument’s comparison of the brands is incomplete and its conclusion that Acid-Ease is the best is thus unconvincing and biased because the playing field for a “fair” assessment of the brands was unfair from the start.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of faulty evidence that is used to support the conclusion and because of jumps in logic that leave many possibilities open. If the argument had drawn upon the examples and evidence as suggested, these flaws could have been corrected. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
16 Nov 2023, 23:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity (5.5/6):
The essay demonstrates a high level of coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph flows logically from one point to the next, with clear transitions. The introduction sets the stage for the critique, and each subsequent paragraph builds upon the previous one. The use of cohesive devices and the logical progression of ideas contribute to the overall coherence of the essay.
Word Structure (6/6):
The word structure is strong throughout the essay. The vocabulary is diverse, precise, and appropriate for an analytical essay. The sentences are well-constructed, and the language is clear and concise. The author effectively conveys their ideas using a varied and sophisticated vocabulary.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5.5/6):
The essay is well-organized into paragraphs, each addressing a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction provides a clear thesis statement, and each paragraph thereafter focuses on a different flaw in the argument. However, there could be a slightly stronger concluding paragraph summarizing the main points and reinforcing the overall assessment.
Language and Grammar (6/6):
The language and grammar are impeccable. The essay is free of grammatical errors, and the author uses a sophisticated and formal tone appropriate for an analytical writing assessment. The sentences are grammatically correct and effectively convey the intended meaning.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5.5/6):
The vocabulary is rich and well-suited to the analytical nature of the essay. The author employs a variety of terms to express ideas precisely. However, there is room for even more nuanced word choices in some instances. Still, overall, the vocabulary enhances the essay's clarity and effectiveness.
Overall, this analytical writing assessment essay is well-crafted, exhibiting strong coherence, sophisticated language use, and effective organization. The few areas for improvement are minor and do not significantly detract from the overall quality of the response.
Coherence and Connectivity (5.5/6):
The essay demonstrates a high level of coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph flows logically from one point to the next, with clear transitions. The introduction sets the stage for the critique, and each subsequent paragraph builds upon the previous one. The use of cohesive devices and the logical progression of ideas contribute to the overall coherence of the essay.
Word Structure (6/6):
The word structure is strong throughout the essay. The vocabulary is diverse, precise, and appropriate for an analytical essay. The sentences are well-constructed, and the language is clear and concise. The author effectively conveys their ideas using a varied and sophisticated vocabulary.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (5.5/6):
The essay is well-organized into paragraphs, each addressing a specific aspect of the argument. The introduction provides a clear thesis statement, and each paragraph thereafter focuses on a different flaw in the argument. However, there could be a slightly stronger concluding paragraph summarizing the main points and reinforcing the overall assessment.
Language and Grammar (6/6):
The language and grammar are impeccable. The essay is free of grammatical errors, and the author uses a sophisticated and formal tone appropriate for an analytical writing assessment. The sentences are grammatically correct and effectively convey the intended meaning.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5.5/6):
The vocabulary is rich and well-suited to the analytical nature of the essay. The author employs a variety of terms to express ideas precisely. However, there is room for even more nuanced word choices in some instances. Still, overall, the vocabulary enhances the essay's clarity and effectiveness.
Overall, this analytical writing assessment essay is well-crafted, exhibiting strong coherence, sophisticated language use, and effective organization. The few areas for improvement are minor and do not significantly detract from the overall quality of the response.
ｃｈｌｏｅｅｓｔｒａｄａ
Moderator:
