Sponsored Ad:
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

  1. #1
    Eager! gsbawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    16


    Good post? Yes | No

    Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    Sponsored Ad:
    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....


    The argument that people are less concerned about their red meat and
    fatty chesse conmsumtion as they were a deacade ago might first sound
    logical in light of the given facts, but on a closer analysis it sound
    illogial because of the assumtions made by author with regard to
    Heart's Delight store, Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef.

    First, the author does not highlight complete facts and figures about
    the sales at Heart's Delight. Maybe, although there is a wide
    selection of high fat chesse available, the sales might not be big in
    that area. Heart's Delight might be selling organic fruits &
    vegetables and whole-grain flours in huge quantities. If the author
    had provided more details in this area, his argument would have been
    more rational.

    Second, the author assumes to be bearish about the volumes of Good
    Eart Cafe based on the living made by its owner. The argument fails to
    mention that if the owners might be simple people and are doing
    bussiness on "no profit-no loss" basis. The author also fails to
    mention the type of vegetarian food sold by Good Earth Cafe. Maybe the
    chef at Good Earth uses lot of Fatty Chesse and oils to produce foods
    like in Italian food and that is the reason people are not eating
    there. If more light had been shed on this area, the argument would be
    much more logical.

    Third, the author assumes that because the owners of House of Beef are
    millionares, they are doing a flourishing bussiness. The author fails
    to mnention the current status of the bussiness, whether its in profit
    or in loss. Maybe the owners were billionares before and the lack of
    bussiness have made them loose more and now they are millionares. More
    specifics on this would have made the argument more believeable.

    Last, but important factor that undermines the author's claim is that
    author assumes that all these there 3 stores are representative of
    people in general. This in the final nail in the coffin of author's
    argument and thus invalidates it.

    In conclusion, if the author's account would have been more detailed
    and accurate on Heart's Delight store, Good Earth Cafe and House of
    Beef, the argument would have been more logical. In its current state,
    the argument can easily be waekened.

    Kindly rate it from 1 to 6 in your reply!

  2. #2
    Eager! thoughtcurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    16


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    Hi,
    I am keying in my response to the stem .Please comment on it. I will comment on yours in my subsequent post. Before posting the essay, also post the notes that you made and also the time you took in making those notes and in writing the actual essay.
    Cheers!

    Notes ( 5 minutes)
    ------
    1)Makes a general statement but gives specific data.
    2)No data is given about the consumption habits of people in this decade or the last decade.
    3)Assumption that just because a shop has on display a wide selection of cheeses, people must be buying and consuming them too.
    4)Assumption that New House of Beef have become millionares due to increased consumption of red meat, and not due to any other reason.

    Essay (15 minutes)
    ------
    I find the argument that, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, full of logical loopholes and wide assumptions.
    The author makes a very general statement, but provides only specific cases to prove her point. Based on the evidence collected from just three stores, one cannot conclude anything about the entire populace. It may be the case, that the local population in the vicinity of the three stores has become unconcerned about the consumption of red meat and cheese.
    Also the author compares consumption patterns of this decade with the earlier one without giving any quantitative evidence. The evidence that Heart's Delight has on display a wide range of cheese, says nothing about the buying habits of its customers. It may very well be the case that none of the cheeses that are on display sell. Also no figures showing sales of red meat and cheese have been quoted in the text of the article. The author also makes the mistake of correlating the prosperity of the New Beef House proprietors to the sale of beef in their store. It may be the case that the prosperity of the New Beef House is due to some other business venture it has undertaken or due to an inheritance.
    To conclude, the argument falls apart when subject to logical scrutiny. The argument could be made more cogent and tenable if actual sales figures of the products are given for both decades that are being compared. The argument is at best qualitative.

    Proofreading(2 minutes)
    Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

  3. #3
    Eager! gsbawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    16


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    Excellent Begining and Conclusion.

    The middle part would have been better if divided into structures/paragraphs. Ideas/Assumptions/Weakening is perfect. A teacher at Princeton Review Delhi told me that their research concludes that length and structure of the paragraph is the primary basis of scoring for ETS.

    I would rate this 4.5

    Also I have been told its less difficult to score till 5 but the last mile is really tough. I am a non-native based in Delhi with Punjabi as my mother tongue. To me AWA matters a lot because a non-native's AWA is closely reviewed by the admissions com of the school one is applying to. I also think this is going to be a backup for the poor GMAT verbal score.

  4. #4
    Eager! thoughtcurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    16


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    Hi,
    You say that the length and the structure of the para are important in getting a good score in AWA.
    Can you elaborate on that?
    Have you taken the GMAT prior to this?
    I am taking the GMAt with only a month's prep. I am **** scared, to say the least.
    I am banking on my prep for CAT to take me smoothly through GMAT.
    I am sending you an eval for your essay.
    Cheers!
    Thought
    Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

  5. #5
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    4


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    The argument claims that now people are not more concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese than they were decade ago. Although the argument may look persuasive at first glance, but further scrutiny reveals it to be specious. The claim is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Stated in this way, argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. Thus, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

    First, the argument claims that Hearts'Delight that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in 1960's has also wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author doesnot provide any details about the sale of items in the store. The argument could have been more transparent if author had explicitly stated that sales of cheese were better or not than other items in store.

    Second , the argument claims that Good Earth Cafe that is an old vegetarian restaurant still make a modest living. This is again an weak and unsupported claim, as the argument fails to provide any correlation between the sales and other expenditures. There can be chances that Earth Cafe has a huge bank loan and 90% of its profits are paid as a EMI to Bank. Perhaps Cafe Owners might have invested money in some other businesss where they faced a huge loss.

    Third, the argument readily assumes that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because of their high profits from business.
    Perhaps, it could be possible owners are millionaries because they have a lot of ancesstral property. Additionally, there are chances they are running other business whose profit compensates the loss from the Beef House. Without convincing evidences one may be left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

    In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons. The argument could have much clearer if author had considered all relevant facts. In this case, argument does not present any information about current sales of the grocery store and restaurants. One cannot assess the merits or demerits of a situation without having complete knowledge of all contributing factors. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.



    Please rate this

  6. #6
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    4


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

    The argument claims that now people are not more concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese than they were decade ago. Although the argument may look persuasive at first glance, but further scrutiny reveals it to be specious. The claim is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Stated in this way, argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. Thus, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

    First, the argument claims that Hearts'Delight that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in 1960's has also wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author doesnot provide any details about the sale of items in the store. The argument could have been more transparent if author had explicitly stated that sales of cheese were better or not than other items in store.

    Second , the argument claims that Good Earth Cafe that is an old vegetarian restaurant still make a modest living. This is again an weak and unsupported claim, as the argument fails to provide any correlation between the sales and other expenditures. There can be chances that Earth Cafe has a huge bank loan and 90% of its profits are paid as a EMI to Bank. Perhaps Cafe Owners might have invested money in some other businesss where they faced a huge loss.

    Third, the argument readily assumes that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because of their high profits from business.
    Perhaps, it could be possible owners are millionaries because they have a lot of ancesstral property. Additionally, there are chances they are running other business whose profit compensates the loss from the Beef House. Without convincing evidences one may be left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

    In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons. The argument could have much clearer if author had considered all relevant facts. In this case, argument does not present any information about current sales of the grocery store and restaurants. One cannot assess the merits or demerits of a situation without having complete knowledge of all contributing factors. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.

    Please rate this

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Scavengers of meat : GMAT Prep Question
    By iknownoone in forum GMAT Sentence Correction
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 09:56 PM
  2. fatty foods
    By crazy800 in forum GMAT Sentence Correction
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 06:26 PM
  3. red meat ..
    By aru4912 in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 11:20 AM
  4. Four cheeses
    By PINTUDAO in forum TWE
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2004, 12:43 PM
  5. Evaluate/ Criticise this Issue - A business should not be held responsible
    By gsbawa in forum GMAT AWA: Analysis of an Issue
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-10-2004, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •