Please rate my first AWA. Exam on 8th.

This topic has expert replies

Please rate

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

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:04 pm

Please rate my first AWA. Exam on 8th.

by Warhorse » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:38 pm
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper:
"Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town's local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Advertisement is a major source of revenue for the television cable channel. In the above argument the author states that Application for advertising spots decreased for the local cable television channel while it increased in the neighboring town's local channel after the channel changed the focus to farming issues. The author concludes that KMTV should also focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement spots. Even though the claim does have its merits, the author presents a poorly e reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

Firstly, the author believes that KOOP change in focus to farming issues increased its advertising applications. But the author has not provided any information to validate this claim. The increase in advertising applications could be due to better marketing by the KOOP, KOOP been able to bag a highly rated show during its prime time etc. The argument will be stronger if the author can present some evidence which shows a relationship between the increased advertising applications and the change in focus to farming issue by KOOP.

Secondly the author assumes that the same strategy which worked for KOOP will also work for the local KMTV channel. The KOOP's move to farming issues could have worked out because in that neighboring town there are more number of farmers or because farming is the primary occupation there. If the town where KMTV has its presence is a town in which most of the residents are not interested in farming related issue the strategy of KMTV to focus on farming relates issues is going to backfire. If the author can provide more data or studies which prove that the same strategy will work for both KMTV and KOOP he can further strengthen is argument.

Finally the author assumes that a decrease in advertising spots is necessarily bad. It may well be the case that KMTV was overbooked in its advertising spots and the decrease in advertisement is spots is because the company which applied for spots realized that it would not get the spots it requires as its already booked and did not reapply again. The author's argument can be made stronger if it's proved that the decrease in advertising spots created some spots to be not booked at all.

In sum, the argument fails to convince that KMTV should focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement applications. Argument could be strengthened if it provides more evidence that an increased focus on farming issue was responsible for the advertisement spot increase for KOOP and that the same strategy can work for KOOP and KMTV. Also to bolster the argument the author can provide more details which prove that decreased applications caused some spots to free up in KMTV. Without these things the poorly reasoned argument will convince a few number of people.


Not sure if this is good enough for 4.5 or higher? Please do comment on how it can be improved.
Thanks

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:49 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Thanked: 132 times
Followed by:93 members
GMAT Score:750

by brianlange77 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:10 pm
Warhorse wrote:The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper:
"Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town's local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Advertisement is a major source of revenue for the television cable channel. In the above argument the author states that Application for advertising spots decreased for the local cable television channel while it increased in the neighboring town's local channel after the channel changed the focus to farming issues. The author concludes that KMTV should also focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement spots. Even though the claim does have its merits, the author presents a poorly e reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

Firstly, the author believes that KOOP change in focus to farming issues increased its advertising applications. But the author has not provided any information to validate this claim. The increase in advertising applications could be due to better marketing by the KOOP, KOOP been able to bag a highly rated show during its prime time etc. The argument will be stronger if the author can present some evidence which shows a relationship between the increased advertising applications and the change in focus to farming issue by KOOP.

Secondly the author assumes that the same strategy which worked for KOOP will also work for the local KMTV channel. The KOOP's move to farming issues could have worked out because in that neighboring town there are more number of farmers or because farming is the primary occupation there. If the town where KMTV has its presence is a town in which most of the residents are not interested in farming related issue the strategy of KMTV to focus on farming relates issues is going to backfire. If the author can provide more data or studies which prove that the same strategy will work for both KMTV and KOOP he can further strengthen is argument.

Finally the author assumes that a decrease in advertising spots is necessarily bad. It may well be the case that KMTV was overbooked in its advertising spots and the decrease in advertisement is spots is because the company which applied for spots realized that it would not get the spots it requires as its already booked and did not reapply again. The author's argument can be made stronger if it's proved that the decrease in advertising spots created some spots to be not booked at all.

In sum, the argument fails to convince that KMTV should focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement applications. Argument could be strengthened if it provides more evidence that an increased focus on farming issue was responsible for the advertisement spot increase for KOOP and that the same strategy can work for KOOP and KMTV. Also to bolster the argument the author can provide more details which prove that decreased applications caused some spots to free up in KMTV. Without these things the poorly reasoned argument will convince a few number of people.


Not sure if this is good enough for 4.5 or higher? Please do comment on how it can be improved.
Thanks
On first glance it looks nice... but, there are some challenges from a grammar/sentence structure perspective that I think you are going to want to address. I've attempted to highlight them in bold above. In fact, I only got through the first paragraph....

-First bolded sentence is way too long, run-on, lacking transition punctuation, etc.
-Typo with the random 'e'
-shouldn't it read "KOOP's change"?
-by "the" KOOP? why use that there when you don't use it any place else?
-"KOOP been able to bag a highly rated..." -- what?

Like I said, on first glance, the length/structure look nice, but once you get into the details, this would definitely score lower than a 4.5, and might even go lower than a 4.0.

Thoughts?

-Brian
_________________
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT

Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.

And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it! :-)

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:04 pm

by Warhorse » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:58 am
Thank you Brian for your feedback.
Guess I need to practice more.
I kept only 2-3 min to proof read which I think is less considering I am weak in writing good sentences. Let me try to incorporate your feedback in the next practice AWA.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:49 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Thanked: 132 times
Followed by:93 members
GMAT Score:750

by brianlange77 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:58 pm
Warhorse wrote:Thank you Brian for your feedback.
Guess I need to practice more.
I kept only 2-3 min to proof read which I think is less considering I am weak in writing good sentences. Let me try to incorporate your feedback in the next practice AWA.
Yes -- please feel free to send me your next draft. Think about setting up your 30 minutes like this:

-5 minutes to plan
-15 minutes to write
-10 minutes to go back, proofread, proofread again, etc.

When in doubt on the writing section of the GMAT... keep it simple.

Good luck.

-Brian
_________________
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT

Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.

And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it! :-)