GMAT Essays (AWA)

Katharine, thanks in advance for your feedback. In this attempt, I concentrated on improving the conclusion by providing more detail of the essay prompt. I managed to write five paragraphs and 555 words. I barely had enough time to review the entire response (20 seconds left with one paragraph left to review). Please advise on any glaring areas for improvement.

The following appeared in a corporate memorandum of a beverage manufacturer:

"Our promotional price reductions on energy drinks have been highly successful, as we have seen a dramatic increase in unit sales. Further, surveys of our consumers indicate that this promotion was favorably received by the majority of our customers. Therefore, to improve our company's profitability and enhance its perception in the eyes of consumers, similar price reductions should be offered on all drinks produced by our firm."


The author of the corporate memorandum argues that price reductions across all drinks produced by the beverage manufacturer will improve the company's profitability and enhance its perception in the eyes of consumers. Because the author's argument is based on two flawed points, the conclusion is invalid. Both assumptions lack the necessary data to provide convincing evidence to that the company's profitability will improve.

First, the author claims that a recent promotion on energy drinks that resulted in increased unit sales is applicable across the firm's other beverages. What the author fails to understand is that the promotion was a price reduction and, without accompanying sales and cost data, it is unclear if this actually increased profitability for energy drinks. Profitability is determined by revenue minus costs. The memorandum indicates that unit sales increased, but did not specify by how much, and that prices were reduced. There is no information on what the resulting effect on profits were. Without such data, the author's assumption is incomplete.

Second, the author claims that a consumer survey on the energy drink promotion, which was favorably received by the majority of customers, will enhance the firm's perception in the eyes of consumers and contribute to improved profitability. This assumption is also flawed, as there is no data to substantiate such a claim. It is entirely possible that the positive feedback on the survey was a result of the reduction in prices, not necessarily acceptance or interest in the quality of the product. Furthemore, it is not guaranteed that consumer feedback will be positive across the firm's other beverages. There is simply no information about the survey's contents to provide enough evidence that consumers will hold a favorable perception of the firm's products.

To improve the author's conclusion, the author could provide additional evidence. Additional information of the resulting effects on the energy drink's profitability would be useful. A detailed breakdown of the impact of the price reduction on unit sales and unit costs would help determine if the promotion did indeed lead to increased profitability. To strengthen the argument that this promotion could be extrapolated across the other beverages and lead to favorable results, the firm could provide forecasts of the effect on unit sales and unit costs for those beverages. Secondly, details of the survey's contents would either strengthen or weaken the author's conclusion. It is important to know which questions were included in the survey. For example, the survey should ask consumers if they would purchase the drink at the original price instead of the promotional price. This would help determine if their purchasing decision was primarily based on the price reduction as opposed to the beverages flavor. With these two fixes, the author's claim could be significantly improved.

In conclusion, the author's argument that the results of the energy drink promotion and the positive feedback on the consumer survey can be used across the firm's remaining beverages to increase profitability is flawed. Nowhere in the memorandum is there convincing evidence to support the author's claim. There is no information about corresponding revenue and cost impacts, which makes it impossible to determine profitability. In addition the memorandum fails to provide information about the survey's contents, so it remains unclear what the firm's true perception is. Without the aforementioned evidence, the author's conclusion is incomplete and lacks significant detail.