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 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.
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
25 Jan 2021, 17:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone! Thanks for taking the time to view... would appreciate any and all feedback you may have regarding my first practice AWA attempt. Thanks in advance! 
Prompt:
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its products lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine roar on the sound track.”
Response:
Overall, while the main conclusion presented has intuitive value (i.e., that other explanations besides the lack of loud noise in knockoff motorcycle X exist in explaining the foreign company's dearth of success), the underlying assumptions and arguments are fundamentally flawed.
As stated, the author's first argument regarding the relative quietness of foreign cars compared to that of similar American-made cars is entirely irrelevant. There is no indication that the characteristics of the general customer segments interested in cars vs. motorcycles have any significant overlap. That is, it is entirely possible that customers purchasing American or foreign cars have totally different preferences regarding the specific features of their respective mode of transportation of choice, such that vehicle noise is relevant to one segment (i.e., Motorcycle X) but not to the other. Had the author provided some tangible evidence of an overlap between customer segments, such as data showing that a large percentage of owners of motorcycle X also own cars, then this argument could have been more properly assessed.
Furthermore, the author relies on an additional argument related to the advertising of motorcycle X, more specifically in regards to the features such advertising emphasizes. This is flawed because the author assumes that advertisements very directly lead to sales of the underlying product but provides no evidence that this is true. For example, if there was data showing inefficient conversion metrics such as many consumers seeing advertisements of motorcycle X but very few actually purchasing them, that could imply a general ineffectiveness with the advertisements as a whole. In this case, any underlying characteristics of the advertisements would not be extremely relevant. Presenting such data would improve the credibility of this assertion.
Finally, the author fails to consider that motorcycle X customers may not actually have a need to purchase an additional motorcycle of their preference, let alone a foreign knockoff version. A consumer survey designed to screen specifically for motorcycle X consumers could get at this idea by simply including at least the following two questions: "Do you currently own at least one motorcycle X?," and "Are you considering purchasing any additional motorcycles in the future?" Such data would be extremely valuable, and could provide stronger evidence than any of the arguments posed by the author that a large reason the foreign company-manufactured version of motorcycle X is failing is due to a saturated market more than anything.
Overall, the final conclusion posed by the author makes a lot of sense; there likely is more than one explanation for a company failing to sell their model of motorcycle X. However, the arguments as presented, surprisingly, do not support such a general conclusion. More evidence or data could make the argument much more logically sound.
Prompt:
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its products lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine roar on the sound track.”
Response:
Overall, while the main conclusion presented has intuitive value (i.e., that other explanations besides the lack of loud noise in knockoff motorcycle X exist in explaining the foreign company's dearth of success), the underlying assumptions and arguments are fundamentally flawed.
As stated, the author's first argument regarding the relative quietness of foreign cars compared to that of similar American-made cars is entirely irrelevant. There is no indication that the characteristics of the general customer segments interested in cars vs. motorcycles have any significant overlap. That is, it is entirely possible that customers purchasing American or foreign cars have totally different preferences regarding the specific features of their respective mode of transportation of choice, such that vehicle noise is relevant to one segment (i.e., Motorcycle X) but not to the other. Had the author provided some tangible evidence of an overlap between customer segments, such as data showing that a large percentage of owners of motorcycle X also own cars, then this argument could have been more properly assessed.
Furthermore, the author relies on an additional argument related to the advertising of motorcycle X, more specifically in regards to the features such advertising emphasizes. This is flawed because the author assumes that advertisements very directly lead to sales of the underlying product but provides no evidence that this is true. For example, if there was data showing inefficient conversion metrics such as many consumers seeing advertisements of motorcycle X but very few actually purchasing them, that could imply a general ineffectiveness with the advertisements as a whole. In this case, any underlying characteristics of the advertisements would not be extremely relevant. Presenting such data would improve the credibility of this assertion.
Finally, the author fails to consider that motorcycle X customers may not actually have a need to purchase an additional motorcycle of their preference, let alone a foreign knockoff version. A consumer survey designed to screen specifically for motorcycle X consumers could get at this idea by simply including at least the following two questions: "Do you currently own at least one motorcycle X?," and "Are you considering purchasing any additional motorcycles in the future?" Such data would be extremely valuable, and could provide stronger evidence than any of the arguments posed by the author that a large reason the foreign company-manufactured version of motorcycle X is failing is due to a saturated market more than anything.
Overall, the final conclusion posed by the author makes a lot of sense; there likely is more than one explanation for a company failing to sell their model of motorcycle X. However, the arguments as presented, surprisingly, do not support such a general conclusion. More evidence or data could make the argument much more logically sound.
26 Jan 2021, 11:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
wukon - Welcome to GMAT Club! I believe it's a great AWA response. I personally love the length and the structure. I would advice to not overuse a single structural keyword; for instance, I see you started both the first and the last paragraph with the structural keyword, overall. I also see only a very grammar issues. You may very well be on the path to achieving a perfect score of 6 on the AWA section.
