GMAT Essays (AWA)

Group #4: Analysis of Argument
DKLA was the innovator in the market for casual women's business apparel. Smith & Co. was once the leader in that market with $2 billion in sales until styles changed and Smith & Co.'s clothes went out of fashion. DKLA can also be expected to fail, especially because the market for casual women's business apparel is saturated.

Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

In the argument the author concludes that DKLA will fail as a company. this argument is weak and is based a number of faulty assumptions and fails to provide any concrete evidence that would support this conclusion

Firstly, the author makes a fallacy of faulty analogy by comparing the fact that Smith & Co lost their market edge when they failed to keep up with style changes and their clothes went out of fashion. Which caused the company to loose its leadership position. There is no evidence to support that DKLA would make the same strategic errors. In fact the author states that DKLA are innovators which suggests that they are ahead of the time.

Secondly the author states that the market is saturated which is why DKLA is expected to fail. This is faulty and contradicts the authors statement that DKLA are the leaders in the market. One does not follow from the other. This statement would apply to a new company that is still trying to establish its place in the market but not to a leader in the market.

In conclusion the author would need to provide more evidence that suggests that DKLA are not making any efforts to stay up to date with changing fashion if he or she wanted to strengthen the argument that the company would fail. The evidence provided above does not build a strong case for the argument.

What you have is good - just try to write more of it. You did an excellent job spotting some errors in the author's logic, but your discussion could be more in depth. Spend an extra sentence or two in each paragraph explaining the error in logic in more detail. Also, try to be more specific/detailed regarding how the author could strengthen the argument. Finally, aim for three body paragraphs (each one discussing a different error in the author's logic).

Good luck on your test!

Oh, right, you probably want a score!

I'll give this a 4, but you have the potential to get a 5 or 6.

Hey Jim - thanks for the feedback!

Here is a response to the same question. I couldn't think of many points. Could you suggest some? And please give feedback for this essay.



The argument claims that DKLA is expected to fail in the casual women's business apparel market, as a result of saturating demand. This claim is based on the premise that Smith & Co., which was once the leader in this market, failed when its clothes went out of fashion. This argument is fallacious for the following reasons.

First, a saturated market market may imply that the demand is stagnant. It may or may not involve changing styles. It is not clear why a stagnant demand should lead to the failure of a company. In this case, DKLA has been an innovator in the past and may continue to innovate and thus, its clothes would still appeal to women. Thus, DKLA only needs to maintain its market share, or prevent it from dropping too low, to remain profitable. If on the other hand, it had been stated that the company would not innovate, and its clothes would soon go out of fashion, it would be reasonable to conclude that DKLA would fail.

Second, if the saturation of the market is suggested in terms of innovation, that is, no further innovation is possible in the market for women's clothing, then too, the conclusion is not logically drawn. If this is the case, DKLA can very well stop innovating and continue to sell the same style of clothes that it has been selling. There is no reason given that suggests that DKLA would fail in such a scenraio.

Finally, Smith & Co. may have failed because it failed to adapt to the change in demand. But nothing in the argument suggests that DKLA would do the same. Thus, the conclusion is far-fetched and poorly supported by the evidence.

In conclusion, the argument that DKLA would fail is vulnerable to criticism for the above mentioned reasons. If it included the points mentioned above, such as whether the clothes sold by DKLA would go out of fashion, it would be more persuasive.