GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:

"According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that because professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain within three months, experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%, and because the protein supplement is readily available at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to only professional athletes. The article uses weak evidence and uncorrelated assumptions in arriving at the conclusion. To further reinforce the argument, the article needs to review the premise of the argument. The conclusion will be more convincing if it addressess the stated evidence, and the assumptions used as discussed below.

First, fact that a 20% increase in measured strength was observed on the tested professionals, was used as evidence that the protein is infact reliable and effective. We where not told whatsoever, whether this athletes also injested something else that aided the increase. Also, to confirm that it was infact the protein supplement that resulted to the increase in strength, we need a control environment. If other bodybuilders, who are subjected to the same condition experienced that same increase, the evidence that the protein supplement was effective would have been weakened.

Second, the argument states that because the supplement is available at all major pharmacies, one is rest assured that superior results are no longer limited to professsional athletes. This position is mis-leading. Because an item is readily available does not mean that its usage will produce the same result as observed in other group of users. We are not told by any means whether the said group of athletes used the protein in combination with some other products. Moreso, we are not informed whether the test bodybuilders used the supplement according to medical instruction: the product works only when certain conditions are maintained.

Finally, the position that because some people used the supplement for only three months suggests that people can now take it and get same result in just a few months suggests that the same product will work for everybody within the same short notice. This is not necessarily true. We need to know the peculiar medical circumstance in with the people who took the supplement where subjected to. Otherwise, the instruction is not well supported, and could be misleading.

In sum, stated this way, the argument is not very convincing. To make the argument more convincing, there is need to address the issues discussed above:a mere percentage reference, availability at all major pharmacies to mean equal opportunity among others. Unless the afore-mentioned factors are properly addressed, the argument remains weak, unconvincing and subject to further questioning.

First, fact that a 20% increase in measured strength was observed on the tested professionals, was used as evidence that the protein is infact reliable and effective. We where not told whatsoever, whether this athletes also injested something else that aided the increase. Also, to confirm that it was infact the protein supplement that resulted to the increase in strength, we need a control environment. If other bodybuilders, who are subjected to the same condition experienced that same increase, the evidence that the protein supplement was effective would have been weakened.

Second, the argument states that because the supplement is available at all major pharmacies, one is rest assured that superior results are no longer limited to professsional athletes. This position is mis-leading. Because an item is readily available does not mean that its usage will produce the same result as observed in other group of users. We are not told by any means whether the said group of athletes used the protein in combination with some other products. Moreso, we are not informed whether the test bodybuilders used the supplement according to medical instruction: the product works only when certain conditions are maintained.

These two paras are very well written but they seem to speak redundant thing. It has already talked about the controlled environment for true representation of results. This weakness might get in the eye of the reviewer.

The premise-way to prove the weakness is well said.

You have used "where" in place of "were" at times. This happens when we are not amongst writing days.

"Lack of evidence exposes weakness." so the best way to remove weakness is provide evidence which is proven by medical fraternity and is conclusive over race, time with conditions and riders.

I hope it helps. You seem to be a good writer, just a little rusty. Practice.

Thanks "Throughmba" for taking time to critique my essays.

Please could you think of any counter example, as in any contextual evidence
that may strengthen my essays? I find it difficult, sometimes, to give
any contextual example when writing Analysis of an Argument.

Thanks.

I am writing my GMAT this weekend! Please help evaluate my essay

As per the argument, the new protein supplement Train &n Gain is now available without prescription making professional level performance easy to obtain. However,this argument lacks evidence and reasoning and is rather unconvincing.

Firstly, the author mentions that the body builders who consumed the protein for 3 months experienced increased strength. However, he fails to examine the fact that was Train& Gain the only supplement consumed by these subjects. the author ignores the possibility that protein supplement in combination with other supplements may have resulted in the high performance.

Secondly, the author mentions that since the protein supplement is available without prescription people other than professional athletes can obtain superior results. However, by making this claim the author is assuming that other body builders did not have access to the prescriptions earlier which could have helped them obtain the supplement, rendering little support to his argument. Also, mass availability of the protein does not necessarily mean that it will yield the same results as it did , when consumed under prescription.

Lastly, the author claims that consumption of Train&Gain can boost your strength and help achieve professional level results. However, by making this claim he is assuming that no other factors contribute to achieving high professional levels performance. There are many other factors, such as diet, physical workout, mental strength, right coach etc, which help boost performance. Therefore, by isolating the consumption of the protein supplement as the sole reason for high performance shows the oversight of facts by the author.


As the author has failed to collect all facts and based his argument on assumptions, his conclusion fails to be convincing and is rather flawed.