GMAT Essays (AWA)

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.

Answer:

The argument claims that Federville Farms provides the best camp experience for the children by citing its rank of overall camper satisfaction, food quality in a survey. Hence, Fedverville Farms gives a call parents to look no further for their children's summer camp. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that Federville Farms provides the best camper experience for children because of its rankings in a recent survey. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. For instance, there are many colleges which claim higher rankings in surveys, which are not so trustworthy. The students should not trust their rankings blindly, instead should verify the trustworthiness of the survey. For business school rankings, Financial Times rankings are considered to be most trustworthy. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the survey is trustworthy.

Second, the argument claims that Federville Farms is very safe for children as it has been operating for over forty years and is a family owned enterprise. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrated any correlation between the safety standards and the family ownership of Federville Farms. If the argument had provided evidence that family ownership and the years of operations have positively impact on safety standards then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument concludes that Federville Farms provides a safe experience as it employs the highest number of red cross certified life guards when compared to any other camps in the state. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how the employment of life guards ensures the safety for children if the number of students in summer camp outnumber the life guards. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing, It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the trustworthiness and the clear explanation of safety standards of summer camp would have strengthened the argument. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.