Analytical Writing Assessment
The following appeared as part of an article reviewing summer camps for children.
Parents, if you need a summer camp for your children look no further than Federville Farms. In a recent survey, Federville Farms ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, and second in the variety of outdoor activities. Federville Farms has been family owned and operated for over forty years, so you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your child's safety, and it employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. If you seek the best camp experience for your children, Federville Farms is the best choice you can make.
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.
---
The argument presented in support Federville Farms as the best choice for summer camps lacks on certain points. The author mentions recent survey in support for Federville Farms, but the author does not mention anything about how the survey was conducted, who conducted the survey, what was the sample size of the survey conducted, where was the survey conducted & what was demographic of the people surveyed. These things need to be considered while evaluating the survey in question. For e.g., whether all the firms providing summer camps were included in the survey, whether the sample size was large enough to account for more appropriate evaluation, and whether the survey was conducted was a reliable third party having no interest what so ever in any of the firms surveyed. Also no mention of whether children who are the actual campers were part of the survey as they can give first-hand account of the experience.
Further the argument of more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state in terms of child safety would have been stronger if the author had mentioned the ratio of lifeguards to children in the camp. Second there is no mention of what overall camper satisfaction includes. There needs to be more detail about the things included in the survey to correctly evaluate the above argument of Federville Farms being the best camp.[size=0][/size]
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Kindly rate my essay - Wrote it for the 1st time
This topic has expert replies
Hi,
Your argument has several good points but lacks order. You should focus more on presenting a systematic analysis. Also, your analysis is too short. To earn a score of 6 in AWA one should have at least 560-600 words in his analysis.
My rating: 2/6
you know the trick, just have to elaborate a bit.
Cheers,
Willy
Your argument has several good points but lacks order. You should focus more on presenting a systematic analysis. Also, your analysis is too short. To earn a score of 6 in AWA one should have at least 560-600 words in his analysis.
My rating: 2/6
you know the trick, just have to elaborate a bit.
Cheers,
Willy
Here is my analysis on that text 
The author claims that Federville Farms (FFs) are the best choice parents can make if they seek the best camp experience for children. However, the author fails to backup his claim with relevant facts.
First, he mentions that FFs ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, but he doesn't give any clues about who run this survey and who was the target of this study. Were the study subjects friends and family members of this family operated business? Was the survey run accross the country or just in a very specific area where people value very specific things in camps?
Second, the argument claims that, since FFs have been family owned and operated for over forty years, parents don't have to worry for their child's safety. This claim reveals poor reasoning because the author assumes that family operated businesses run with less accidents than other business types. It is common sense that safety should be a key factor in every business, not just for the family owned ones. He also tries to backup this claim by mentioning that FFs employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. Are the red cross certified lifeguards better than other certified lifeguards? Why is this an asset? Even if this was the best certification a lifeguard could get, what if there are just 2 or 3 more camps in this state with very poor safety scores?
Without convincing answers to this questions, one is left with the impression that the claims stated above are more of a wish to prove that FFs are safe rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument above is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The advertising effectiveness of FFs could be considerably strengthened if the author could mention facts such as:
a) The survey was run by a relevant source or an important survey company with the proper methodology
b) FFs ranked last in number of fatal or serious accidents per year according to a relevant source
The author claims that Federville Farms (FFs) are the best choice parents can make if they seek the best camp experience for children. However, the author fails to backup his claim with relevant facts.
First, he mentions that FFs ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, but he doesn't give any clues about who run this survey and who was the target of this study. Were the study subjects friends and family members of this family operated business? Was the survey run accross the country or just in a very specific area where people value very specific things in camps?
Second, the argument claims that, since FFs have been family owned and operated for over forty years, parents don't have to worry for their child's safety. This claim reveals poor reasoning because the author assumes that family operated businesses run with less accidents than other business types. It is common sense that safety should be a key factor in every business, not just for the family owned ones. He also tries to backup this claim by mentioning that FFs employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. Are the red cross certified lifeguards better than other certified lifeguards? Why is this an asset? Even if this was the best certification a lifeguard could get, what if there are just 2 or 3 more camps in this state with very poor safety scores?
Without convincing answers to this questions, one is left with the impression that the claims stated above are more of a wish to prove that FFs are safe rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument above is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The advertising effectiveness of FFs could be considerably strengthened if the author could mention facts such as:
a) The survey was run by a relevant source or an important survey company with the proper methodology
b) FFs ranked last in number of fatal or serious accidents per year according to a relevant source
Here is my analysis on that text
The author claims that Federville Farms (FFs) are the best choice parents can make if they seek the best camp experience for children. However, the author fails to backup his claim with relevant facts.
First, he mentions that FFs ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, but he doesn't give any clues about who run this survey and who was the target of this study. Were the study subjects friends and family members of this family operated business? Was the survey run accross the country or just in a very specific area where people value very specific things in camps?
Second, the argument claims that, since FFs have been family owned and operated for over forty years, parents don't have to worry for their child's safety. This claim reveals poor reasoning because the author assumes that family operated businesses run with less accidents than other business types. It is common sense that safety should be a key factor in every business, not just for the family owned ones. He also tries to backup this claim by mentioning that FFs employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. Are the red cross certified lifeguards better than other certified lifeguards? Why is this an asset? Even if this was the best certification a lifeguard could get, what if there are just 2 or 3 more camps in this state with very poor safety scores?
Without convincing answers to this questions, one is left with the impression that the claims stated above are more of a wish to prove that FFs are safe rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument above is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The advertising effectiveness of FFs could be considerably strengthened if the author could mention facts such as:
a) The survey was run by a relevant source or an important survey company with the proper methodology
b) FFs ranked last in number of fatal or serious accidents per year according to a relevant source
The author claims that Federville Farms (FFs) are the best choice parents can make if they seek the best camp experience for children. However, the author fails to backup his claim with relevant facts.
First, he mentions that FFs ranked first in both overall camper satisfaction and in food quality, but he doesn't give any clues about who run this survey and who was the target of this study. Were the study subjects friends and family members of this family operated business? Was the survey run accross the country or just in a very specific area where people value very specific things in camps?
Second, the argument claims that, since FFs have been family owned and operated for over forty years, parents don't have to worry for their child's safety. This claim reveals poor reasoning because the author assumes that family operated businesses run with less accidents than other business types. It is common sense that safety should be a key factor in every business, not just for the family owned ones. He also tries to backup this claim by mentioning that FFs employs more Red Cross certified lifeguards than any other camp in the state. Are the red cross certified lifeguards better than other certified lifeguards? Why is this an asset? Even if this was the best certification a lifeguard could get, what if there are just 2 or 3 more camps in this state with very poor safety scores?
Without convincing answers to this questions, one is left with the impression that the claims stated above are more of a wish to prove that FFs are safe rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument above is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The advertising effectiveness of FFs could be considerably strengthened if the author could mention facts such as:
a) The survey was run by a relevant source or an important survey company with the proper methodology
b) FFs ranked last in number of fatal or serious accidents per year according to a relevant source
