Hi guys,
I am taking the gmat on monday, so I would like some feedbacks and rates on my essays so that i can improve before D-day. Thank you.
« In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regumating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's delight, a store 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 café, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new house of beeff across the street afre millionaires. »
In the preceding statement, the author claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty chesses. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. His first premise to support his conclusion is that the Hearth's delight, an organic store, now sells fatty chesses. But does the fact that an organic store sells fatty chesses support the conclusion that people are not regulating their intake of these foods. Clearly no ! The mere fact that the organic store sells fatty cheeses can mean that it is willing to diversify and attract more customers. That people buy fatty chesses does not corrolate with higher consumption. His second premise is comparing the wealth of the owners of next door restaurants. Since, the steak house owners are millionaires and the Organc restaurant's owner are making a modest living, he concludes that it illustrates the changes in consumption patterns of the population. This is highly questionable. As, for example, the organic restaurant could be producing poor quality products, whereas the steak house could be the best in town, hence explaining partially the difference in wealth. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. He assumes that restaurant consumption is representative of the actual consumption patterns of the population. But what if restaurant consumption would actually be representative of the contrary ? For example, people who regulate strictly their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses on a daily basis could go occassionaly to a steak house or a nice french restaurant to enjoy a tasty steak and some refined cheeses. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and falling to provide explication of the links between restaurant consumption and regulation of intake of read meat and fatty cheeses he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. By citing some numbers on general consumption patterns comparing the two different periods, or by citing studies proving that restaurant consumption corrolates with actual comsumption patterns, the author could fix his argument.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. But, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
Analysis of an issue
Rather than using traditional question-and-answer interviews, companies should...
The issue of whether employers should use traditional question-and-answer interviews rather than observe the job candidates perform a job task to evaluate them is a controversial one. I would tend to think that traditional interviews are better to evaluate job candidates because they enable employers to assess the employee's fit with the company's culture and norms and the employee's leadership potential.
First, a traditional interview is usually the first direct contact between the candidate and the employer. Thus, by having an in-depth disccussion of their mutual motivations, both the candidate and the employer can assess whether there is a fit between their expectations. For example, a job candidate can decide not to take the offer after the job interview because his personality does not fit with the organizational culture and norms of the company. Furthermore, the employer can assess whether the candidate contains the crucial features necessary to be successful within the company. Those can be the leadership skills, team-working abilities etc.
Second, one could argue that performing the actual tasks could be better for the employer to assess the candidate's fit. I would argue that, the most important features of a candidate are not his actual skills and its ability to perform a specified task but its potential to acquire new skills. Hence, most companies have training programs for their new recruits. Moreover, if a company really craves to evaluate a candidate on his performing skills, it can introduce other types of assessment, such as case studies, in the traditional interview. In the consultancy industry, case studies are the norm, but there are always coupled with traditional interviews.
In sum, because traditional question-and-answer interviews enable employers to assess the fit of the candidate with the organizational culture, norms and values, and its potential to develop crucial skills, they are better suited to the recruitment process than observing a candidate perform some of the job's actual tasks.
I am taking the gmat on monday, so I would like some feedbacks and rates on my essays so that i can improve before D-day. Thank you.
« In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regumating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's delight, a store 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 café, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new house of beeff across the street afre millionaires. »
In the preceding statement, the author claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty chesses. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. His first premise to support his conclusion is that the Hearth's delight, an organic store, now sells fatty chesses. But does the fact that an organic store sells fatty chesses support the conclusion that people are not regulating their intake of these foods. Clearly no ! The mere fact that the organic store sells fatty cheeses can mean that it is willing to diversify and attract more customers. That people buy fatty chesses does not corrolate with higher consumption. His second premise is comparing the wealth of the owners of next door restaurants. Since, the steak house owners are millionaires and the Organc restaurant's owner are making a modest living, he concludes that it illustrates the changes in consumption patterns of the population. This is highly questionable. As, for example, the organic restaurant could be producing poor quality products, whereas the steak house could be the best in town, hence explaining partially the difference in wealth. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. He assumes that restaurant consumption is representative of the actual consumption patterns of the population. But what if restaurant consumption would actually be representative of the contrary ? For example, people who regulate strictly their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses on a daily basis could go occassionaly to a steak house or a nice french restaurant to enjoy a tasty steak and some refined cheeses. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and falling to provide explication of the links between restaurant consumption and regulation of intake of read meat and fatty cheeses he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. By citing some numbers on general consumption patterns comparing the two different periods, or by citing studies proving that restaurant consumption corrolates with actual comsumption patterns, the author could fix his argument.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. But, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
Analysis of an issue
Rather than using traditional question-and-answer interviews, companies should...
The issue of whether employers should use traditional question-and-answer interviews rather than observe the job candidates perform a job task to evaluate them is a controversial one. I would tend to think that traditional interviews are better to evaluate job candidates because they enable employers to assess the employee's fit with the company's culture and norms and the employee's leadership potential.
First, a traditional interview is usually the first direct contact between the candidate and the employer. Thus, by having an in-depth disccussion of their mutual motivations, both the candidate and the employer can assess whether there is a fit between their expectations. For example, a job candidate can decide not to take the offer after the job interview because his personality does not fit with the organizational culture and norms of the company. Furthermore, the employer can assess whether the candidate contains the crucial features necessary to be successful within the company. Those can be the leadership skills, team-working abilities etc.
Second, one could argue that performing the actual tasks could be better for the employer to assess the candidate's fit. I would argue that, the most important features of a candidate are not his actual skills and its ability to perform a specified task but its potential to acquire new skills. Hence, most companies have training programs for their new recruits. Moreover, if a company really craves to evaluate a candidate on his performing skills, it can introduce other types of assessment, such as case studies, in the traditional interview. In the consultancy industry, case studies are the norm, but there are always coupled with traditional interviews.
In sum, because traditional question-and-answer interviews enable employers to assess the fit of the candidate with the organizational culture, norms and values, and its potential to develop crucial skills, they are better suited to the recruitment process than observing a candidate perform some of the job's actual tasks.
