-
gmatdriller
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
ESSAY QUESTION:
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that because professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain within three months, experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%, and because the protein supplement is readily available at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to only professional athletes. The article uses weak evidence and uncorrelated assumptions in arriving at the conclusion. To further reinforce the argument, the article needs to review the premise of the argument. The conclusion will be more convincing if it addressess the stated evidence, and the assumptions used as discussed below.
First, fact that a 20% increase in measured strength was observed on the tested professionals, was used as evidence that the protein is infact reliable and effective. We where not told whatsoever, whether this athletes also injested something else that aided the increase. Also, to confirm that it was infact the protein supplement that resulted to the increase in strength, we need a control environment. If other bodybuilders, who are subjected to the same condition experienced that same increase, the evidence that the protein supplement was effective would have been weakened.
Second, the argument states that because the supplement is available at all major pharmacies, one is rest assured that superior results are no longer limited to professsional athletes. This position is mis-leading. Because an item is readily available does not mean that its usage will produce the same result as observed in other group of users. We are not told by any means whether the said group of athletes used the protein in combination with some other products. Moreso, we are not informed whether the test bodybuilders used the supplement according to medical instruction: the product works only when certain conditions are maintained.
Finally, the position that because some people used the supplement for only three months suggests that people can now take it and get same result in just a few months suggests that the same product will work for everybody within the same short notice. This is not necessarily true. We need to know the peculiar medical circumstance in with the people who took the supplement where subjected to. Otherwise, the instruction is not well supported, and could be misleading.
In sum, stated this way, the argument is not very convincing. To make the argument more convincing, there is need to address the issues discussed above:a mere percentage reference, availability at all major pharmacies to mean equal opportunity among others. Unless the afore-mentioned factors are properly addressed, the argument remains weak, unconvincing and subject to further questioning.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that because professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain within three months, experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%, and because the protein supplement is readily available at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to only professional athletes. The article uses weak evidence and uncorrelated assumptions in arriving at the conclusion. To further reinforce the argument, the article needs to review the premise of the argument. The conclusion will be more convincing if it addressess the stated evidence, and the assumptions used as discussed below.
First, fact that a 20% increase in measured strength was observed on the tested professionals, was used as evidence that the protein is infact reliable and effective. We where not told whatsoever, whether this athletes also injested something else that aided the increase. Also, to confirm that it was infact the protein supplement that resulted to the increase in strength, we need a control environment. If other bodybuilders, who are subjected to the same condition experienced that same increase, the evidence that the protein supplement was effective would have been weakened.
Second, the argument states that because the supplement is available at all major pharmacies, one is rest assured that superior results are no longer limited to professsional athletes. This position is mis-leading. Because an item is readily available does not mean that its usage will produce the same result as observed in other group of users. We are not told by any means whether the said group of athletes used the protein in combination with some other products. Moreso, we are not informed whether the test bodybuilders used the supplement according to medical instruction: the product works only when certain conditions are maintained.
Finally, the position that because some people used the supplement for only three months suggests that people can now take it and get same result in just a few months suggests that the same product will work for everybody within the same short notice. This is not necessarily true. We need to know the peculiar medical circumstance in with the people who took the supplement where subjected to. Otherwise, the instruction is not well supported, and could be misleading.
In sum, stated this way, the argument is not very convincing. To make the argument more convincing, there is need to address the issues discussed above:a mere percentage reference, availability at all major pharmacies to mean equal opportunity among others. Unless the afore-mentioned factors are properly addressed, the argument remains weak, unconvincing and subject to further questioning.
