-
andrewpaulsimmons
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:38 pm
---------------------------------
GMAT Essay Prompt
----------------------------------
A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative
---------------------------------------
--------------
My Essay
----------------------------------------------------
While the argument that HR2 should not be replaced is somewhat convincing, the author overlooks a few critical points. To start, when the author cites the lack of complaints he only examines a one year period. If the product is new to the market, customers may have not yet had an opportunity to experience the effects of prolonged use. Additionally, the argument provides no insight into the severity of hair loss experienced by those who participated in the study or the number of people effected. Finally, the premise that the HR2 is safe because competing products use the chemical in larger quantities is very weak as competitors may be making the same argument. In short the argument is founded in speculations and built on peripheral or irrelevant premises.
First, the argument examined only complaints from the last year. Since we are given no insight into the duration over which the product has been available we can not be sure that any customers are yet experiencing the effects of prolonged uses. While this premise would be slightly more convincing if the product has been in distribution for a long duration, the arguments lack of consideration for previous complaints, in this case, would be very disconcerting. If the product has been in distribution for many years a conclusive list of complaints would make the argument more well founded.
Second, the 500 person study is small; however, if the impact is considerable the results may be quite valid. The argument provides no insight into the extent of hair loss endured by participants in the study. This premise would be stronger if the argument showed that the results of the study were minimal. Conversely, if the effects of hair loss due to prolonged use of HR2 was considerable and widespread the argument would be much weaker. Given that little information is provided about the exact discoveries made by the study, or the overall validity of the process used to conduct the study, the argument fails to dispel the results of the study and is greatly weekend by this critical omission.
Third, the premise that HR2's use by competitor justifies its use in this product is simply a false assumption. In the 1970's, asbestus was used in countless products. Had this logic been used, each company could have justified its use of asbestos from the others. This ends in circular reasoning. However, if the argument contained information about the competitors which suggested that they had performed a stringent testing process it may have been strengthened by this premise.
In conclusion, this argument does not effectively defuse the concern raised by the small study. The argument fails to be persuasive when addressing the lack of complaints over the previous year as no information regarding the duration over which the product has been available is provided. The premise that the small size of the study eliminates its validity simply is not substantiated as no information about the quality of the study or the severity of the results is provided. The premise that competitors use of HR20 in shampoo justifies its use in this shampoo fails to be a strong premise as no information is provided regarding the quality standards of competing manufacturers. The premises upon which this argument are built, simply cannot stand without further information leaving the argument weak and founded in speculation and wishful thinking.
GMAT Essay Prompt
----------------------------------
A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative
---------------------------------------
--------------
My Essay
----------------------------------------------------
While the argument that HR2 should not be replaced is somewhat convincing, the author overlooks a few critical points. To start, when the author cites the lack of complaints he only examines a one year period. If the product is new to the market, customers may have not yet had an opportunity to experience the effects of prolonged use. Additionally, the argument provides no insight into the severity of hair loss experienced by those who participated in the study or the number of people effected. Finally, the premise that the HR2 is safe because competing products use the chemical in larger quantities is very weak as competitors may be making the same argument. In short the argument is founded in speculations and built on peripheral or irrelevant premises.
First, the argument examined only complaints from the last year. Since we are given no insight into the duration over which the product has been available we can not be sure that any customers are yet experiencing the effects of prolonged uses. While this premise would be slightly more convincing if the product has been in distribution for a long duration, the arguments lack of consideration for previous complaints, in this case, would be very disconcerting. If the product has been in distribution for many years a conclusive list of complaints would make the argument more well founded.
Second, the 500 person study is small; however, if the impact is considerable the results may be quite valid. The argument provides no insight into the extent of hair loss endured by participants in the study. This premise would be stronger if the argument showed that the results of the study were minimal. Conversely, if the effects of hair loss due to prolonged use of HR2 was considerable and widespread the argument would be much weaker. Given that little information is provided about the exact discoveries made by the study, or the overall validity of the process used to conduct the study, the argument fails to dispel the results of the study and is greatly weekend by this critical omission.
Third, the premise that HR2's use by competitor justifies its use in this product is simply a false assumption. In the 1970's, asbestus was used in countless products. Had this logic been used, each company could have justified its use of asbestos from the others. This ends in circular reasoning. However, if the argument contained information about the competitors which suggested that they had performed a stringent testing process it may have been strengthened by this premise.
In conclusion, this argument does not effectively defuse the concern raised by the small study. The argument fails to be persuasive when addressing the lack of complaints over the previous year as no information regarding the duration over which the product has been available is provided. The premise that the small size of the study eliminates its validity simply is not substantiated as no information about the quality of the study or the severity of the results is provided. The premise that competitors use of HR20 in shampoo justifies its use in this shampoo fails to be a strong premise as no information is provided regarding the quality standards of competing manufacturers. The premises upon which this argument are built, simply cannot stand without further information leaving the argument weak and founded in speculation and wishful thinking.
