Review comments and approx score on Argument essays
Source: MGMAT CAT 1 and CAT 2

Here are 2 argument essays that I wrote. I would really appreciate some review comments and an approx score. I know how much of an effort this is and am expecting very short comments. May be overall 2-3 positive and 2-3 negative, all one-liners and an approx score on each essay. Thats it. Basically I want to know if I am well prepared for AWA or do I need to practice more. I am looking for a perfect 6.0 on the actual GMAT as I am not very confident about my verbal score and also because I am not a native english speaker and hence essays would play an imp role for me.



CAT Exam #1 A 5/26/2007

AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a corporate memorandum of a beverage manufacturer:

“Our promotional price reductions on energy drinks have been highly successful, as we have seen a dramatic increase in unit sales. Further, surveys of our consumers indicate that this promotion was favorably received by the majority of our customers. Therefore, to improve our company’s profitability and enhance its perception in the eyes of consumers, similar price reductions should be offered on all drinks produced by our firm.”

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:
Although at first glance it may seem logical, the argument that similar price reductions like the ones mentioned should be offered on all drinks manufactured by the company to enhance profitability as well as the image of the company, is not entirely convincing. On closer observation it is evident that the very logic of the argument is flawed owing to several crucial gaps in its line of resoning. The argument maked three crucial assumptions each of which need to be stated out loud in order to ensure soundness.

Firstly, the argument assumes that the promotional price reductions on energy drinks are the only cause for the increase in unit sales, or that the discounts at least serve as the overriding factor. Although price reductions are likely to have improved sales, it would be premature to term this correlation as a cause-effect relationship without sufficient evidence. It is possible that due to several other reasons such as poor distribution of competitors' products, effective advertising or introduction of new flavours are responsible for the increased sales; there is not enough support in the argument to make a claim that the price reductions are the only reason. The argument can be strengthened by including more details and specific examples to prove that the promotional price reductions can indeed take the major credit for enhanced revenues.

Secondly, if we give the argument the benefit of the doubt that the promotional price reductions are primary responsible for the increased sales, yet the argument never addresses the issue of the credibility of the survey that seems to indicate that price reductions have proven to be a welcome move for the consumers. No information has been provided regarding the authority conducting these surveys. Say, if the surveys have been conducted by employees of the same manufacturer, it is likely that the results have been manipulated to impress the top management. If the survey conducting authority is reputed and neutral such as Org-Marg or AC-Nielson, the results would be much more believable. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the majority of customers who seem to have welcomed the price reductions, would not have consumed the beverages in same quantity in spite of the original prices. In such a case, the profitability of the company has actually been harmed. The argument can be substantiated by stressing upon the reliability of the surveys indicating that the survey results indeed verify the addition of new customers, or at least an increase in consumption by the existing customers.

Finally, even after one might agree to the price reductions to be responsible for the increased sales and the survey to be reliable, the argument never takes into consideration the fact that the promotional campaign is responsible for increased sales, and may not help in improving profitability or uplifting the manufacturer's image. Increase in revenues and increase in profitability are entirely different expectations for a company, and neither has any strong correlation with a brand image face-lift. Moreover, the suggestion that similar reductions should be implemented on the other drinks manufactured by the company is misleading; it is likely that the margins for energy drinks were high enough to allow such discounts, but this may not be the case for the other drinks. The argument can be made more persuasive by mentioning sufficient details to justify the claim that such promotions would actually improve profitability and brand image; and also by stating that the situation of energy drinks and that of other drinks is indeed analogous when it comes to discounts.

Consequently, based on the assumptions mentioned above, the argument as it stands is not entirely sound. The evidence given in the argument i.e. an assumed cause-effect relationship and some random survey, is able to provide only a feeble support to the conclusion i.e. such promotional price reductions should be applied to other beverages manufactured by the company. The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating each of the assumptions listed above. More details regarding the correlation between the discounts and increased sales, reliability of the survey as well as comparison between energy drinks and other beverages would help better evaluate the conclusion. As of now, the management is ill-advised.




CAT Exam #2 A 5/31/2007

AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:

“Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco’s success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your 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 conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

YOUR RESPONSE:
Although at first glance it seems logical, the argument that the town of Barchester should adopt the law enforcement policies practised in the town of Spartanburg owing to their assumed success in the latter, is not entirely convincing. On closer observation it is evident that the very logic of the argument is flawed owing to several crucial gaps in its line of reasoning. The argument makes two broad assumptions each of which need to be stated out load in order to ensure soundness.

Firstly, the argument falsely assumes a mere correlation between the severity of punishment for petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting and spraying graffiti, and the decrease in serious crimes such as homicide to be a cause-effect relationship. A simultaneous decline in both types of crimes could very well be nothing more than a coincidence. Even if we give the argument the benefit of the doubt that it is indeed the crackdown on petty crimes that helped reduce the more serious crimes, it would be illogical to assume that the crackdown is the only cause, or even the ovverriding factor. It is likely that several other reasons could be eligible for majority of the credit for improvement in the law and order situation. An improvement in the economic situation of the town leading to a rise in employment levels would help reduce crimes such as theft. Strict measures to ensure against drug abuse would lower associated crimes such as homicide. Better salaries in already existing jobs would also serve to increase the general well being and satisfaction of the residents. Small changes such as construction of parks and places of entertainment serve to keep youth from wandering into gangs and associated crime. Such factors tend to play a much bigger role than merely reducing petty crime. The argument can be made more compelling by providing further details and an in depth analysis to justify that it is indeed the commissioner's efforts to reduce petty crimes that are truely responsible for the reduction in more serious crime. Currently, there appears to be a severe lack of support in the argument to make such a claim.

Secondly, Mr. Velazquez fails to address the issue that the situation in the town of Barchester may not be analogous to that in Spartanburg, or for that matter not even comparable. Even if one agrees to the claim that strict measures to control petty crime have brought about a significant reduction in more serious law violations, we cannot assume that the same cause-effect relationship would apply to an entirely different town. What if the administrative resources at the disposal of the town of Barchester such as judiciary, jail facilities etc. are not as vast as those available to the town of Spartanburg? What if the sheer number of law enforcement agents per 1000 citizens is much lower? In case of such scenarious it is highly misleading to assume that a large scale crackdown on petty crimes would improve the law and order situation in Barchester as well. The argument can be made more persuasive by adding that the law and order situation in Barchester is indeed comparable to that in Spartanburg. Such a comparision can be justified only if the agencies in both town are equally capable and also the prevailing crime rates in both towns do not vary widely. Even the sheer number of people living in the towns and available economic as well as social opportunities must be reasonably similar to justify such a comparison.

Consequently, based on the assumptions stated, the argument as it stands is not entirely logical. The evidence mentioned in the argument i.e. crackdown on petty crimes has solved more serious problems in Spartanburg, is able to provide only a feeble support to the conclusion i.e. such a crackdown would serve the same purpose in Barchester. The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating each of the assumptions listed above. As of now, the administrative machinery of the town of Barchester is ill-advised.

Hi Rahul, I observed similar positives and negatives in both essays, so let’s just use the beverage manufacturer essay for discussion. I appreciate your request for simple one-liner feedback, but considering your score goal, I thought I should give you more to go on.

CAT Exam #1: Beverage Manufacturer

I noted your good organization and use of signal words (Firstly, secondly, finally) but still had a little trouble picking out your 3 points.

Here’s what I think your 3 main points were:
1. Was the price decrease was primarily responsible for the increase in sales?
2. How credible are the surveys that indicate the price reduction was a “welcome move” for consumers?
3. Are energy drinks analogous to the other drink products?

If you actually intended to make different points, then it might be that your message is a little muddled. I think there are several possible reasons:

1. There were a lot of very long sentences, sometimes making it harder to understand and probably increasing the occurrence of grammatical errors. There were enough errors throughout that your score would be negatively affected, so consider simplifying your sentence structure.

2. Don’t hide your main point deep in each paragraph! You often recapped previous paragraphs before mentioning your next point, noteworthy since the OG sites “needless repetition of the same points” in its explanation of a score = 4 essay. For example, in the paragraph on your second point, we read: “Secondly, if we give the argument the benefit of the doubt that the promotional price reductions are primary responsible for the increased sales (note: this is a recap of the first point), yet the argument never addresses the issue of the credibility of the survey that seems to indicate that price reductions have proven to be a welcome move for the consumers. No information has been provided regarding the authority conducting these surveys.” The bold text should be much closer to the beginning of the paragraph, so cut out the “benefit of the doubt” stuff. In the paragraph that presents your third point, you only got to the point after the “moreover” halfway through the paragraph.

3. Similarly, you went a little off-topic within some paragraphs. In the paragraph about the authority of the survey taker, you went on to question whether the effect on customers related to the profitability of the company. That should either be a separate point, or explicitly related to the survey takers in some clear way.

By the way, I think your main points were pretty strong. Ironically, if you write less, you will make your essay easier to understand, possibly have time to cite more flaws (you only had time for two points in the Spartanburg essay), and reduce the number of errors, all of which would raise your score. As written, I would estimate the score for these essays as 4.0 maximum.

Thank you so much for the detailed response.

I was a bit concerned that I was going too much for length; actually I had read in one of the study guides that length is a very important factor. WOW! I dint realize so many errors would cost me a 4.0, generally getting my essays evaluated on the net I have been scoring a consistent 5-6. But now I realize that only minor errors are forgiven, not so many. I shall reduce my length and redundancy, and also try to focus on only one point in a paragraph.

I have one question though, one of the scoring rules for argument essays is "develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions" (Source OG11, pg-760). Reading some sample essays I presumed this to mean that if you have A, B, C assumptions you are supposed to logically connect them as first A, even if A given then B, and even if A and B allowed then C. Is that right? Now, I think not. I will improve upon this and post a new essay tonite or tomorrow only for the score and to see if I have improved. I hope I can get a quick response on that as my GMAT is in a week.

Thanks again.

Also, what would be a good length, say 500 words?

Hi Emily,

I have tried incorporating all your suggestions and written two new argument essays, one from MGMAT 5 and another from OG11. Could you please go thru them swiftly and see if I have improved. Also an approx score would be great. Any addition comments would be most welcome, this time feel free to keep them really short.

Pls respond ASAP as my GMAT is in 6 days and am very worried about my essays esp as a non-native english speaker.

Here they are:

CAT Exam #5 A
ESSAY QUESTION
The following appeared in a medical magazine:

"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."

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.


RESPONSE
Although at first glance it seems logical, the argument that doctors are doing a great disservice to their patients by prescribing expensive drug treatments and risky invasive procedures instead of art and music therapy, is not entirely convincing. On closer observation it is evident that the very logic of the argument is flawed owing to several crucial gaps in its line of reasoning. The argument makes three broad assumptions each of which need to be stated out loud in order to ensure soundness.

Firstly, the argument assumes that art and music actually have therapeutic effects without providing enough evidence to support this claim. As stated in the argument, health benefits of art and music seem to be merely a matter of opinion rather than a proven medical fact. There are very few documented cases, except for a few supposed miracles, in which such unconventional treatments have helped cure patients who suffer from severe illnesses. The argument can be strengthened by including some specific examples of the benefits of art and music such as reduction in stress, self actualization, feel-good effect etc. Stating some actual cases in which art and music helped cure physical and mental illnesses in patients would also make the argument more persuasive.

Secondly, the argument chooses to ignore the fact that some health conditions invariably require expensive and invasive medical procedures. For example, severe artery blockage in case of a heart patient requires a surgical procedure called Engioplasty; in this procedure the patient is operated on and stilts are placed inside the arteries. Such a heart condition cannot be treated by any kind of art or music. The argument can be substantiated by limiting its claim to only those medical conditions that can actually be treated with more cost effective treatments such as art and music. These could include hypertension, depression, phobias etc.

Finally, the argument never takes into consideration the expectations that patients have of their doctors. The argument directly accuses the doctors of prescribing expensive and risky treatments; what if the patients themselves find such treatments more convincing than music or art? In such a case, the doctor would have only a limited autonomy in deciding the curative course of action. The argument would be more compelling if it clarified that patients would actually prefer and be at least as convinced by these unconventional treatments as they were by the traditional practices.

In conlcusion, based on all the assumptions mentioned above, the argument as it stands is not entirely sound. The evidence given in the argument i.e. a mere opinion that music and art have therapeutic effects, is able to provide only a feeble support to the conclusion i.e. doctors are doing a great disservice to their patients by prescribing drug treatments and invasive procedures. As of now, both the doctors and the patients seem ill-advised by this article.




(Source OG11, Pg-774)
The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the financial planning office to the administration of Fern
Valley University:
“In the past few years, Fern Valley University has suffered from a decline in both enrollments and admissions
applications. The reason can be discovered from our students, who most often cite poor teaching and inadequate
library resources as their chief sources of dissatisfaction with Fern Valley. Therefore, in order to increase the number
of students attending our university, and hence to regain our position as the most prestigious university in the greater
Fern Valley metropolitan area, it is necessary to initiate a fund-raising campaign among the alumni that will enable us
to expand the range of subjects we teach and to increase the size of our library facilities.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

RESPONSE
Although at first glance it may seem logical, the argument that expanding the range of subjects and increasing the size of library facilities would help Fern Valley University increase the number of students, is not very convincing. On closer observation, it is evident that the very logic of the argument is flawed owing to several crucial gaps in its line of reasoning. The argument makes three broad assumptions each of which need to be stated out loud in order to ensure soundness.

Firstly, the argument assumes that the views of enrolled students are representative of those held by prospective students. Poor teaching and inadequate library facilities are problems only a student actually studying at the university would realize. It is highly unlikely that these are the reasons why lesser students apply to Fern Valley University. The argument can be strengthened by including opinions of students who chose not to apply to the university. Surveys of high school seniors and online feedback forms would provide the necessary data to better evaluate the conclusion. Reasons such as lack of awareness of courses offered, location, lack of financial aid etc. seem more likely.

Secondly, the argument chooses to ignore the fact that increasing the range of subjects and the size of the library facilities are very different from improving quality. Students are dissatisfied with the poor quality of teaching, and not because their favorite subjects are not offered. Similarly, inadequacy of library facilities may not be just in term of the number of books but for several other reasons such as inadequate seating arrangements, limited hours of library access, poor condition of books etc. The argument can be made more persuasive by stating that improvement, and not expansion of the facilities would help increase student enrollments and lift the public image of the university. Hiring more qualified teachers and providing round the clock access to the library would be more advisible alternatives.

Finally, the argument never takes into consideration the issue of enrollments. The various proposals in the argument can at best serve to increase the number of applications; admissions are a different issue altogether. To increase the number of successful candidates the university would be required to advertise itself to those students who would best match its admission criteria. Say, currently only domestic students apply to the university, while the university would like to encourage diversity through more international candidates. In such cases advertisements would help more than improvement in facilities. The argument can be made more persuasive by including publicity options as possible solutions along with infrastructure enhancements.

In conclusion, based on all the assumptions listed above, the argument as it stands is not entirely sound. The evidence given in the argument, i.e. views of current students, is able to provide only a feeble support to the conclusion i.e. facility expansion would increase number of students admitted and improve the university image. The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating each of changes mentioned. As of now, the administration at Fern Valley University seems ill-advised.

Hi Emily,

Pls feel free to ignore ALL my other posts, other than this one and about the issue essays. Rest all are much much less important now, pls respond to these two ASAP.

Thanks,
Rahul

Hi, Rahul

Emily won't be back on the boards until next week, so I took a look. Much clearer essays this time around; you did a good job following Emily's advice.

In your opening paragraphs, I'd tweak this slightly: "The argument makes three broad assumptions each of which need to be stated out loud in order to ensure soundness. "

Stating something out loud does not necessarily ensure soundness. Instead, you might say that the assumptions need to be both made explicit and substantiated.

Be careful about saying things like "Reasons such as lack of awareness of courses offered, location, lack of financial aid etc. seem more likely. " You can say that, for example, these other reasons might be factors, but you really don't know what explanations are more likely b/c the whole scenario is entirely made up. :) It's great to point out that other things might be factors, alternatives, whatever... but don't say something else is more likely / advisable or better b/c you just don't have enough information to draw those kinds of conclusions.

Or for "As of now, the administration at Fern Valley University seems ill-advised." again would be better to say something like "The administration would be ill-advised to follow this plan without further evidence to support the connections between the univerity's goals and the specific mechanisms recommended in this argument."

Overall, though, on track. I'd say 4.5 / 5.0.