2 weeks for GMAT - Please rate my essays !

[omerta]

Analysis of Argument
The following was used as part of an internet advertising company's appeal to businesses: Furniture Depot employed our internet advertising company to help. Since then its sales increased by 10% over last year's totals. Furniture Depot's success demonstrates how using our internet services can increase your profitability.

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.

Internet advertising has become a rage in the last decade or so. Almost every brand and company advertises online. But nevertheless internet advertising needn't necessarily be the be all and end all. The advertisement claims that Furniture Depot was able to show a 10% increase in its sales after employing the internet advertising company and advertises that using it can increase profitability. Though this claim may have merit, the advertisement has some unsubstantiated premises and assumptions and seems to omit out certain crucial evidential details.

Primarily, the ad suggests that the furniture depot only employed the internet advertising company. It is possible that the internet company was simply a small part of a massive campaign involving print and audiovisual media. Also they may have employed multiple internet advertising agencies. While the company in question might have aided in increasing sales, it cannot claim the entire credit without knowing about the other agencies employed,if any.

The second flaw is with the assumption that a 10% increase in sales actually yielded profits. It is quite possible the company was in dire need of money and started selling things off at huge discounts, rather like a clearance sale. This could be because the company was failing and was exiting the market. In that case one cant talk about the company's 'success'.

As it is ambiguous whether we are talking about sales or sales value, it is quite possible that the reverse happened with the company increasing it prices and selling lesser items but having an increase in sales value.

The ad doesnt provide evidence as to the number of people who became customers of Furniture Depot as a direct result of the ad company's work. If say, it had included a survey of the no of customers who had shopped at Furniture Depot as a result of the internet advertising campaign the claim would have been more substantial.

While there are unsubstantiated assumptions and premises, the argument as a whole is not without merit. If the ad can convey details about the complete ad campaign of the depot and show the yield in profits as a direct result of the internet advertising, it would make a more valid claim about increasing profitability.
In conclusion, in its present form the ad's illogical statement based on unsubstantiated premises and assumptions makes its claim about increasing your profitability unconvincing.

[omerta]

Analysis of Issue
The desire of corporations to maximize profits creates conflict with the general welfare of the nation at large.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.


In the modern world, politics society industry and money are often inexplicably linked and requires the others for sustenance. But if one of these is allowed to further itself selfishly then it will generally have an adverse effect on the other. If corporates try to maximize the profits by all means possible, it would have an ill effect the nations welfare. The corporate may employ illegal means, or use resources indiscriminately or kill off any competing new industries.

Now , one can say that corporates increasing their profits lead to better income for the nations via taxes and so they should be encouraged to increase their profits. But the truth remains that the corporates will try to wriggle their way out of paying taxes in order to increase their profits. Be it through illegal means or lobbyists or even muscle power they try to get laws enacted and benefits announced that help their profits and sales. Also more black money and illegal deposits can come into play in a bid to increase profits.

Also, most corporations use some or the other natural resources.While there is nothing wrong in that, the problem arises when these corporations, in a bid to increase profits come what may, indiscriminately exploit these resources. All over the world you find instances of big corporations causing the depletion of resources like oil and forest cover. As much as they have right to use a nations resources, they have a responsibility to preserve them and invest in protecting them. And more often than not this responsibility will clash with their bid to maximize profits.

The rise of entrepreneurs is generally considered a sign of a nations good welfare. Entrepreneurship is generally not encouraged by big corporations. If any competing business is set up, they generally try to absorb that company or force it to shutdown in someway. So indirectly corporates discourage entrepreneurship.

While corporates are an integral part of a nation, if their sole purpose is to maximize their profits, it will act against the general welfare of the nation. Corporates should be encouraged to advance their business and gain profits in a fully legal and correct manner while being responsible the nations resources and respectful towards budding establishments.