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 advertisement for Train & Gain says that anyone can boost their strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months, since the protein supplement is now available at all major pharmacies without prescription. It states as evidence that certain professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain over the course of three months experienced a 20% increase in measured strength.
The argument is not convincing since what may have worked for professionals may not produce a similar result for the common man. Moreover, the advertisemen does not mention if there could be any side effects in people taking the protein supplement without prescription. The argument as a whole fails to account for certain very important questions.
Firstly, professional bodybuilders would generally be engaged in vigorous weight-training or other body building exercises while taking the protien supplements. This would help in using the extra protein to increase strength. But if a person were to have Train & Gain, without accompanying it with exercise, would the person still experience an increase in strength? Also, it possible that the 20% increase in strebgth in professioanl body builders was due to the exercise alone or some factor other than the intake of Train & Gain. For instance, the professionals may be taking other supplements or may have altered their diets to help them increase their strength. So, a cause- effect relation between increase in strength in professionals and the intake of Train & Gain cannot be made with surity.
Secondly, the ad claims that people taking Train & Gain will achieve professioanl-level performance in just a few months. This seems far-fetched. The study, even if it were to accurate, only showed that professioanl body-builders increased their strength by 20%. But a common man would have a level of strength much below a professional's. Thus, even if Train & Gain resulted in a 20% increase in strength in that person, it cannot be said to be equivalent to the strength of a professioanl.
Hence, the argument is not airtight, and needs to incorporate additional data to sound more convincing.

Thanks for the feedback! I have tried to improve the concluding paragraph, but I am not able to write too much in the 30-minute time frame. So, length is still a problem, do you have some suggestions on how write longer paragraphs?


ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a strategy memorandum of an investment company:

"Over the past several years, investment in precious metals, such as gold and silver, has proven to be one of the most profitable investment strategies for our firm. Over the next decade, the demand for these metals is expected to be strong, largely driven by the economic growth of large emerging markets--China, India, and Russia. Thus, our investors are best served by increasing their exposure to precious metals to take advantage of this unique profit-making opportunity."

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 author states that investors in their company would be best served by increasingly investing in precious metals. This conclusion is based on the premise that the demand for such metals is expected to increase due to the economic growth of large emerging markets, and that the investments in such metals has been one of the most profitable strategies for the firm. This argument is unconvincing and the stated evidence certainly does not prove the conclusion made by the author.

First, one evidence used to support the argument is that investment in precious metals has been one the most profitable strategies for the firm. But, to conclude on this basis that it is the best available option for investors is far-fetched. What if the firm has been investing only in those schemes that have not been very profitable over the past several years? Then, there may be other investment strategies, such as investing in mutual fund schemes or buying stocks of a company, that are far more profitable than investing in gold or silver.

Second, expected increase in demand for precious metals may have resulted in greater price for these metals already. In such a case, the price may not rise dramatically, if at all, for these metals. Moreover, other factors could lead to a decrease in their price, such as the discovery of large gold mines, that decrease prices by increasing supply. So, an expected increase in demand alone would not make investments in precious metals the most profitable option available.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive for the above mentioned reasons. It would be more airtight if it had been given that investments in precious metals have been the most profitable mode of investment across a majority of firms, and that the demand for precious metals will increase more than the supply. Once these points are included, the conclusion would be better drawn.

Thanks for the rating. I have worked on the length a bit and I have already seen the videos.

ARGUMENT
'The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it - even though that amount is far more than any other person involved in the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.'


MY RESPONSE:
The argument claims that producers should pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in their movie, 3003, if they want to maximize their profits. The author bases his claim on the premise that Robin has been paid such an amount in the past when she starred in financially successful movies. This argument is fallacious for the following reasons.

First, the evidence states that Robin was paid several million dollars to star in movies that were a financial success. It is likely that well-known producers, who are generally successful, produced those films and they must have paid their cast and crew higher as they could afford it, and were reasonably sure that they would recover their investment. Thus, the success of the films may be attributed to the popularity of the producer or the director, or maybe even some other star in the film. The role played by Robin may not even have been the lead role. Moreover, we must consider if Robin has acted in any films that have flopped. If so, it is certain that starring Robin Good in a film does not ensure that the film will be a success.

Second, the author assumes that higher revenue will lead to higher profits. It is possible that the movie doesn't make enough money to recover the amount paid to Robin. For instance, if another actor is chosen for the role, and paid much lower than Robin, say half a million dollars as opposed to 10 million dollars for Robin, and the rest of the movie production costs 40 million dollars, then, if the movie were to make 49 million dollars if it stars Robin and 48 million dollars if it stars the other actor, it would be better to star the other actor.

Third, we do not know if Robin will be ready to star in the movie for a lower pay. The author has assumed that since in some movies she was paid several million dollars, she would not be willing to work at a rate below that. Furthermore, it is not known if Robin is suitable for any role in the movie, 3003.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. If the assumption pointed out above were found to be true, then the author's conclusion would hold. However, if any were untrue, the argument wouldn't. In its present state, the argument is vulnerable to criticism.