BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Please rate, writing my GMAT in 40 hours... big thanks!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:18 pm

Please rate, writing my GMAT in 40 hours... big thanks!

by fujyoshi » Mon May 10, 2010 6:12 pm
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.


In the modern fast-paced world, diet and fitness is extremely popular on the media channels. The advertisement of Train & Gain claimed that its product "over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%" and declared that the consumers can boost strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months. I have found the statement unconvinced and I will discuss my point of view by pointing the flaws and unreasoned assumptions.

The chief reason that I have doubts with the declare is,the kind of 'measured strength' mentioned in the ad. What type of "strength" is the ad referring to? Mental or physical? Muscle or Bone? This information was not provided in the print ad and thus misled readers to assume Train & Gain would increase muscle or physical strength. However, some readers may interpret the content as increasing power will, which is mental strength. Students may buy the products to stay over-night when preparing for final exams. The misinformed group will thereby experience potential risk due to the misunderstanding of content from the ad. Hence, the first sentence of the print ad is not well-reasoned and well-informative while mentioning the "strength".

The second reason that I found the advertisement unconvinced is the 20% indicated by the print. Twenty percent up comparing to the average adult in the same group? Or twenty percent increase comparing to the product taker months ago? The answers of these questions were not found in the print ad either. The ambiguous data is therefore untrustworthy without a frame.

Moreover, the assumption of taking Train & Gain alone in order to achieve significant results is invalid. Different with the professional athletes, who have abundant knowledge on calories-consuming and nutrition meals, regular population do not possess the skills to identify what should be ate with and without certain food or supplements. What if the Train & Gain buyers double their regular dinner sizes because they believe Train & Gain would already help them lose weight? The assumption that Train & Gain will help buyers automatically boost energy without participating any related activities could underline and therefore cause post-purchase confusions, which in the long run, will decrease sales and eventually negatively impact Train and Gain performance in the market.

In sum, I believe the argument in the ad is not well-reasoned due to the fact that the content is misleading, ambiguous and may cause future confusions according to above assumptions.


i finished in 25 minutes...

thx
Last edited by fujyoshi on Mon May 10, 2010 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — GMAT Essays (AWA) |
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:18 pm

by fujyoshi » Mon May 10, 2010 6:44 pm
"Individuals living in capitalist economies suffer a higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies. Creating regulations that protect a society can't help but interfere with free market forces, a basic tenet of capitalism."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.



Various factors are instrumental to the success of corporations and organizations, in any kind of economies. One of the factors is government regulations. There are claims that the authors believe people in capitalist communities suffer higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies, due to the regulations applied to protect society rather than companies from practicing free market force. However, I disagree with these authors and I will discuss my argument with some examples and reasons.

The main reason of my belief is that regulations in fact , protect both society and companies. In any countries or economies, laws protect both corporations and their consumers. Without any regulations, competitions will cause absolute chaos in the market due to unethical methods of promoting. More tragically, non-regulated society will result lose-lose situations among sellers. For instance, in a small village, the price of chicken could be decided by anyone on the market-street. A's chicken is actually unhealthy but A claims their chicken is on sale due to massive production. Most buyers will buy A's chicken and get sick, as a result, lose interest with chicken for the rest of their lives. All the chicken sellers including A will go bankrupt. Therefore, government enforcement is absolutely necessary.

Secondly, the regulations will make the businesses better. Some regulations provide business owners incentives while supporting self-employments. Capitalist economies encourage corporations and organizations to maximize profits more than any other types of economies. The government, also regulators, will monitor the overall healthiness of markets and make sure the demand and supply are balancing well off each other. Hence, the entrepreneurs should thank the regulators for not interfering with their forces, but assisting the companies in the long run.

Moreover, there are risks anywhere in any kind of economies. In non-capitalist economies, there are likely more hidden limitations or restrictions. For example, bribing is common in some economies. This kind of activities has put a negative impact by discouraging fair-trade competition. Without regulations, there are overflown non-regular talents in the market, that will eventually decrease the productivity of many regular firms.

Therefore, individuals living in capitalist economies are not suffering a higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies. Rather, the regulations are not interfering with free market forces by protecting societies, but they are benefiting the corporations, protecting the organizations and discouraging unethical behaviors in the market.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:09 pm

by tmp123 » Tue May 11, 2010 7:13 pm
Jyoshi,

Sorry to hack in man...I tried to mimic the following template

https://www.beatthegmat.com/argument-ess ... 38032.html

What do you think about this one?...obviously I didn't checked for typos...



In the above argument the author claims that by using a new protein suppliment called Train & Gain one can boost strength and achieve professional level performance in a short period of time. While agreeing to the fact that we cannot totally strike out the argument, the author presents a poor argument based on questionable premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. Based, solely on authors evidence we cannot agree this argument as valid.

The primary issue with this argument is that this arugument is based on a recent study involving professional bodybuilders. This study claims that 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%. This premises raises more questions rather than answers. Reader of the argument can question about authenticity of this study and the results. This premises clearly failed to support its claim about. Based on this unsubstantiated premises we cannot validate the conclusion of this argument.

Further more this argument assumes that what worked for professional body builders will work for normal people. Author is ignoring the fact that professional body builders or professional athelets will go through intensive training for numerous years. This argument also ignores side affects due to
more protein intake. In general athelets body is tuned for more protein intake and more protein for normal humans might be harmfull. This argument fails to provide any proof regarding FDA approval.

While we cannot total ignore the argument's claim about increase in measured strength in professional athelets but author fails to provide any details about how this strenght is measured. This arugument can be substantiated by providing more details about the study, how this study is conducted, what are the main ingredients of this protein suppliment and what constitues measured strength. Authors of this argument must provide details about safety such as side affects and how to use this product etc. Authors must proved whether this product is FDA apporoved or not.

In summary, this argument is based on several questionable premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. Based on these unsupported premises and evidence we cannot accept this argument as it. As mentioned in above paragraph this argument can be strenghted by answering several assumptions. People will trust this advertisement if it includes FDA approval. FDA approval will authenticate the authors claim about increase in measured strength.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1