• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Essay review - thank you in advance

This topic has expert replies

rate

6
0
No votes
5
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
3
1
100%
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 1

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Oct 2012

Essay review - thank you in advance

by gmat1014 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:07 am
ESSAY QUESTION:

The following appeared in a medical magazine:

"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."

YOUR RESPONSE:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by focusing on costly drug treatment and invasive procedures instead of low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author's claim is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, I cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
By stating that art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects, it doesn't provide any proof that they can also heal one from his illness.
Furthermore, it has not been pointed out that art and music do not carry serious risks and side-effects.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
The assumption that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients is based on the aforementioned premises that lack any legitimate evidentiary support.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions, and failing to provide explication of the links between costly drug treatment and invasive procedures and the rising cost of health care in the United States 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.
If the author could provide evidentiary proof that art and music are both as effective as classical drug treatment, and are less expensive, he would strenghten his argument.
Though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author could increase his argument significantly.

In summary, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If he truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support.
Without these, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few readers.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 14516
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1262 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:29 am
gmat1014 wrote:ESSAY QUESTION:

The following appeared in a medical magazine:

"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."

YOUR RESPONSE:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by focusing on costly drug treatment and invasive procedures instead of low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author's claim is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, I cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
By stating that art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects, it doesn't provide any proof that they can also heal one from his illness.
Furthermore, it has not been pointed out that art and music do not carry serious risks and side-effects.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
The assumption that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients is based on the aforementioned premises that lack any legitimate evidentiary support.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions, and failing to provide explication of the links between costly drug treatment and invasive procedures and the rising cost of health care in the United States 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.
If the author could provide evidentiary proof that art and music are both as effective as classical drug treatment, and are less expensive, he would strenghten his argument.
Though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author could increase his argument significantly.

In summary, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If he truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support.
Without these, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few readers.
My first observation: Your essay prompt is not an official prompt. Since you are guaranteed to see one of the official essay prompts on test day, why not practice with an official prompt? If you're lucky, you'll see that same prompt on test day.

The structure of the essay is good, but the writing needs some work (some issues highlighted above).

I believe that this essay would receive a 3 to 3.5 on test day.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Use my video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide
Image
Watch these video reviews of my course
And check out these free resources

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Thanked: 4 times

by svd.kumar » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:17 am
Hi,

Could you please give comments to my essay for the same topic. I have scheduled my GMAT on 20th Nov.

My Response: -

Author statement that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, author not only assumes that all kind of diseases can be cured by using art and music but also assumes that all the drugs used for treatments are costly and have side-effects. furthermore author doesn't consider that main study of doctors is on treatment using drugs not on treatment using arts and music. In addition to this conclusion given by author is also firm.

In the argument author bases conclusion on the assumption that all kind of diseases for all kind of patients in different situations can be cured using arts and music. People may be effected with different diseases from small headache to the most dangerous diseases such as HIV, Cancer etc. Also people with different age group and different gender might have different health problems, for example infants, pregnant women, old people etc. If, for example, a diseases is cured using art and music for a middle aged person there is no guarantee that same disease can be cured using same technique for a infant.
Author also ignores the main concept of study of doctors that is based on treatment using drugs not on treatment using art and music. Doctors are experts in treating diseases using drugs, in fact there are many different studies for doctors for different parts of body such as Cardiology, Orthopedic etc, but no studies like treatment of heart diseases using music.

In addition to the above reasons author also draws a firm conclusion that doctors are doing disservice to patients, by not considering the how many lives doctors save and even how much service doctors provide. Author conclusion can be strengthened by giving examples of diseases, which can be cured using art and music or how rising cost of health care is effected by using drugs.

As it stands, however, argument is flawed because of the given reasons.