GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi all,

I have my GMAT in a week and just took my first AWA (GMATPrep2). Would love to get some feedback on it:

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 Cafe, 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. 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.


Response:

The argument states that people today, compared with a decade ago, are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. As evidence of this statement, the argument cites the fact that Heart's Delight sells a wide variety of cheeses, and the fact that the Good Earth Cafe is less financially successful than the newly opened House of Beef. However, in linking these to the statement that people are not concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, the argument makes several unfounded assumptions and leaps of faith. As a consequence, it is not a particularly convincing argument.

Firstly, the fact that the Good Earth Cafe owners make only a modest living, compared with the owners of the nearby House of Beef, is not an indication of people's lack of concern for eating red meat. While it is a step in the right direction to compare restaurants that are in physical close proximity (thus reducing the effect of extraneous factors such as accessibility), there could be a multitude of other reasons for why the owners of Good Earth cafe earn less. In fact, it is quite possible that the Good Earth cafe is much more popular with customers and actually has far higher sales - but is inefficiently run, and incurs disproportionately higher costs. Consequently, it might be much less profitable than the House of Beef (even though the House of Beef may have lower sales), and therefore the owners may earn less. Therefore, it could well be the case that people are indeed concerned with their intake of red meat, but the argument makes an unfounded assumption that the poor profitability of the Good Earth cafe is linked to people's eating preferences. The argument would have more legs to stand on if, for instance, it could be shown that the House of Beef had many more customers. However, even so, the argument would have to account for many other differences between the two restaurants that could impact attendance and which may affect where people choose to eat (e.g., quality of the meals).

The argument also makes the leap of faith that, because Heart's Delight sells a wide selection of cheeses, people are not concerned with their intake of cheese. However, it is also mentioned that Heart's Delight sells organic fruit, vegetables and whole grain flour; a fact which is not considered in depth by the argument. Just because Heart's Delight stocks these cheeses does not necessarily mean they sell well. It could be that sales of these cheeses are extremely low in comparison with the other foods that are stocked, and people's preference is not for fatty cheeses. In order to be more credible, the argument would need to demonstrate that sales of these fatty cheeses have risen - and in fact risen at a faster pace than the other items sold. However, without this evidence, the argument presupposes rather too much about sales patterns within the store.

Finally, the argument, in its generalisation that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. The only evidence provided to support this assertion are a couple of examples regarding Heart's Delight and the comparison between Good Earth Cafe and the House of Beef. These are isolated examples and - even if true - would not be sufficiently strong evidence for the argument to make the sweeping generalisations that it does. In order to objectively make this type of statement, the argument would have to provide statistics based on a much larger sample size, comparing a wide range of people's eating habits today to ten years ago.

In summary, the argument is flawed for several aforementioned reasons - including unfounded assumptions and leaps of faith, as well as overuse of anecdotal evidence. It could be strengthened considerably if the author mentioned all the relevant facts and evidence underlying these assumptions. However, without this, it comes across as subjective, unconvincing, and open to debate.


Thanks a lot!

Katharine@GMATPrepNow wrote:Hello MR_JR,

Congrats on starting your AWA prep! My first thought on seeing your response was that it seems long and well-developed, which is great if you finished it within the time limit. If this response took you more than 30 minutes, make sure you complete your next response within the allotted time.

Writing: I didn't find any major writing errors in your response.

Structure: Great job on reaching a full five paragraph essay! Try to achieve this length in your future practice responses. The intro and body paragraphs are fine, but the conclusion is completely generic. It's all right to start with a conclusion template, but you need to modify it to fit each prompt. Adding in a few details from the information in the prompt is all you have to do.

Arguments/Examples: I liked the variety of examples that you provided and how you addressed multiple parts of the author's argument.

Suggestions for Improvement: The only major issue I found was the generic conclusion. If you can practice writing a response with a more solid conclusion tied into the prompt, you'll reach a high score. I'd give this response close to a five, but a little more experience with writing AWAs should help you bump up to top marks.

If you have any specific questions, please let me know.

Best,
Katharine

Hi Katharine,

Many thanks for your reply. Some very useful comments there. I took on your suggestions during a practice test I attempted earlier today. How would you rate the following essay?


ESSAY QUESTION:
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:

"We are very pleased to announce the relocation of our inventory, which had been located in four different warehouses throughout the country, to a single new warehouse near Company headquarters in Boston. This consolidated location will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. As a result we expect our monthly profitability to go up by this amount."

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.

Response

The argument states that the consolidation of a company's inventory into one location will halve the expenses for warehouse rent, and result in the profitability of the company increasing by this amount. However, stated in this way, the argument relies on various unfounded assumptions and leaps of faith, as it does not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. As a consequence, the argument is not particularly convincing.

Firstly, the argument makes the assertion that by relocating inventory, which was previously located in four different warehouses across the country, to a single warehouse in Boston, the company's expenditure on warehouse rent will be cut in half. However, the argument does not provide statistics to support this extremely confident assertion (that the expenses "will" be cut in half). For example, it could be that the cost of real estate is much higher in Boston than where the warehouses were previously located, and the company may incur a higher than expected cost for relocating inventory to Boston. Similarly, one would expect that a single centralized warehouse would have to be larger (to stock all the inventory). These factors would add to the rent expense, but the argument does not explicitly account for such factors in saying that the warehouse rent expense will be cut in half. Had the argument provided evidence to show that these additional cost items were accounted for in the assumption that warehouse cost will be cut in half, there would be more substance behind its claim.

Secondly, the argument claims that the monthly profitability will increase as a consequence of saving on warehouse expenditure. However, profitability is not only dependent on costs, but also on sales. For example, if sales fell by more than 50%, even with a 50% cost saving, profitability would decline. The argument therefore assumes that the company will achieve at least the same level of sales as previously. In order to be strengthened, the argument would need to demonstrate that projected sales are at a sufficiently high level to improve on current profitability. This could be indicated through demand for the company's products staying flat (or ideally increasing). However, at present, the argument requires the reader to make a significant leap of faith.

Finally, the argument suggests that profitability will not only increase, but increase by the same amount that has been saved through reduction of warehouse rent expenditure. Issues around claims of increasing profitability have already been addressed, but there is an additional consideration that the argument presupposes; even if sales are flat, and the warehouse rent is cut by half, this does not necessarily translate to an increase in profitability of the same amount as the warehouse rent saving. The consolidation of warehouses could lead to additional, new, cost items. For example, warehouses may previously have been vertically integrated and co-located with production facilities, reducing transportation costs. However, although consolidation may indeed save on rent expense, this transportation and shipping cost might now be increased, as produced goods all have to be shipped to Boston. Therefore, this would be an additional cost item, reducing the profitability beyond the company's expected level. The argument would need to show that additional expenses are either negligible or have already been accounted for in order to assert that the profitability would increase by the same amount that has been saved on warehouse rent.

In summary, the argument is flawed as it does not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims that warehouse consolidation will reduce rent expenditure; that profitability will rise; and that profitability will rise by the same amount saved on rent. The argument needs to provide relevant facts to support these points for the reader to make an objective assessment. However, without providing evidence for these assertions, for the reasons mentioned, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.