GMAT学习笔记10: AA 10年10月11日回答Torisoul问题记录

23已有 2596 次阅读  2010-12-19 12:52   标签GMAT  Torisoul  笔记  记录  学习 

 

Torisoul: --------------------------------------------------------------

Topic

 

The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.

 

“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track.”

 

AA:

 

The argument above states that the foreign copycats of motorcycle X failed to attract the original brand customers for the reason other than the distinguishing lound noise made by motorcycle X. The arguer presents several reasons: comparison with noise level of foreign cars, television advertisements highlights of durability and sleek lines instead of noisiness, and voice over the engine-roar. In my view these evidences are not convincing enough to arrive at the conclusion that noise is not the key identity, or key selling point of motorcycle X for below reasons:

 

First of all, it is doubtful to use foreign cars as an analog to motorcycle, as these two different type of products present different attractions to buyers. For example, quietness of cars are typically viewed as an important quality of the product, while motorcycle X, on the other hand, sells their products by distinctive noises. therefore quiter foreign cars sell at least as well as American cars is not comparable to the motorcycle catergory.

 

Secondly, even if motor cycle's quietness is a relevant quality that potential buyer would consider, the arguer confused 'product category' with 'brand'. there are several dimensions of a brand image, and its perception in the target customers' minds. In this case, brand motorcycle X is perceived by its over 70 years long built customer base as lound, durable and sleek etc. So for the marketing strategy, or to be more precise advertising strategy, motorcycle X choosing to highlight its durability and sleek lines does not necessarily mean that these are the only two dimensions of the brand. It can well be the reason that since noisiness is such as established quality of the brand thus the company prefer to spend its advertising dollars on some other important features such as mentioned above.

 

Further more, mentioning the rock music in the advertisement helps to prove other way than what the arguer states. Rock music is loud. It well relates to the lound motorcycle X and helps to illustrate the brand image and product quality. Voice-overs rather than engine roar is not sufficient to prove that engine roar, or the noisiness is not important.

 

Therefore, the arguer of above passage uses a different product category as an analog which is not convincing enough and mistakenly considers product as brand. More information or evidences needed to be provided for the reasoning that foreign copycats fail for the reason other than the noise level.

 

James: --------------------------------------------------------------

 

我先不评价你的文章,先看看这个argument本身,我们看argument本身的时候是从argument中的结论开始看,文章结论很明确:外国公司仿制X摩托未能吸引X摩托客户应该不是因为仿制摩托没有X摩托的噪音这个原因。换句话说文章在尝试反驳“外国公司仿制X摩托未能吸引X摩托客户是因为仿制摩托没有X摩托的噪音”。除了结论,文章给了几个事实

       a X摩托存在了70

       b 外国厂商仿制X摩托但不能吸引X摩托客户

       c 隐藏事实:X摩托比仿造摩托噪音大

       d 外国仿制车比美国本土车的噪音小

       e 外国仿制车卖得至少和本土车一样好

       f X摩托电视广告突出特点是耐用和流线

       g X摩托电视广告用大声地音乐掩盖摩托车噪音

文章的结构是这样的:首先给出了一个想要反驳的逻辑“c=>b”,然后用 d+e => 噪音的缺失无负面效果,再用f+g=> 用户关注的不是噪音 由这两个子观点推出作者反驳的内容 噪音的缺失不足以解释仿制摩托不吸引客户。

 

驳斥点可以是很多的:

       1 作者首先在汽车行业作了一个假设:‘噪音缺失对车销售无负面效果’,但是并没有给出充分证据,或者说d+e不能证明这个假设。这者无端的假设了仿制车和本土车的差别只有噪音,但是忽略了别的差别。事实上存在的可能可以是 噪音对于车销售的确有负面影响,但是外国车别的品质的优良完全offset了噪音缺失的缺点。

       2 即便我们接受‘噪音缺失对车销售无负面效果’这一无端的假设,作者也作了一个错误的类比,将车行业和摩托行业类比起来,但是并没有给出充分的证据去证明两个行业的可比新。

       3 作者又无端的假设了电视广告的突出点能够代表消费者的关注点,但是并没有给出证据证明这种代表性,所以即便电视广告完全不关注噪音,但是也不代表消费者不在乎噪音

       4 即便我们接受电视广告能够代表消费者的关注点,这个广告本身也是和噪音有一定的关联性的,所以用这个广告来削弱噪声的影响力也缺乏可信度

 

你的文章中 24是说到了 3说的不那么明显,在你的第二段里面,你尝试说明即便广告不说噪声特性,也不等同于商家不把噪声特性当作品牌的一个维度,我个人认为这个说法不如我上面写的3好,一方面你这种说法并不直接相关于消费者,而是项关于商家,另一方面你这个角度不大容易说清楚

 

这篇文章我认为驳斥点 1 2 3 作为主驳斥点写3段,最后4作为次驳斥点在末尾点处就好了

 

最后说说你的字词

 

The argument above states that {the foreign copycats of motorcycle X failed to attract the original brand customers for the reason other than the distinguishing lound loud noise made by motorcycle X.} (这里是文章结论,但是读起来比较难受,你可以运用SC的一些手段来看看这句话,我建议:The argument above states that the lower level of noise could not account for the fact that copycat of motorcycle X fail to attract X’s customer) The arguer presents several reasons: {comparison with noise level of foreign cars, television advertisements highlights of durability and sleek lines instead of noisiness, and voice over the engine-roar.} (这两个短语并列实际上不是我们的reason,我建议这里的reason用事实:To support this statement, the arguer points out that the lower level of noise does not have any negative effect on car selling. In addition, the arguer also mentions that television ads of motorcycle X highlights durability and sleek lines, with loud music covering engine noise.) In my view, these evidences are not convincing enough to arrive at the {conclusion that noise is not the key identity, or key selling point of motorcycle X} (这句话是很awkward的,因为‘噪音不是X的主要卖点’并不是文章的主要结论) for below reasons: (这句话我建议简要一点,就是本文有些问题,over)

 

First of all, it is doubtful to {use foreign cars as an analog to motorcycle} (这句话有点问题,文章并没有用foreign cars去类比motorcycle,就是carmotorcycle,这里有一个可比性的问题,这种总起就说文章有一个错误类比就行了), as these two different types of products present different attractions to buyers. For example, quietness of cars are is typically viewed as an important quality of the product, while motorcycle X, on the other hand, sells their products by distinctive noises. therefore Therefore quiter {quieter foreign cars sell at least as well as American cars is not comparable to the motorcycle catergory}. (这句话的语法有很突出的问题的,自己看看吧)

 

Secondly, even if motorcycle's quietness is a relevant quality that potential buyer would consider, the arguer confused 'product category' with 'brand'. there There are several dimensions of a brand image, {and its perception in the target customers' minds} (这个说法读起来很奇怪). In this case, brand motorcycle X is perceived by its over 70 years long built customer base as lound loud, durable and sleek etc (这里as 是一个介词后面最好是名词). So (???这里so是一个连词,可以用therefore,或者thereby) for the marketing strategy, or to be(这个平行结构不对,to be 和前面的for不平行) more precise advertising strategy, motorcycle X choosing to highlight its durability and sleek lines (这句话的重心不对,你这样写核心词是motorcycle X但是实际的核心次应该是highlights,建议:the highlights, in ads, of durability and sleek lines instead of noise) does not necessarily mean that these are the only two dimensions of the brand.(建议更改为 durability and sleek lines were the only two dimensions of motorcycle X’s brand) It can well be the reason that, since noisiness is such as an established quality of the brand, thus the company prefers to spend its advertising dollars on some other important features, such as features mentioned above.

 

Further more, mentioning the rock music in the advertisement (这种说法很中国,应该是the rock music in ads就可以了,并不是提到这种音乐这个动作能够help prove…) helps to prove other way than what the arguer states. Rock music is loud. It well relates to the lound loud motorcycle X and helps to illustrate the brand image and product quality. Voice-overs rather than engine roar is not sufficient to prove that engine roar, or the noisiness is not important.

 

Therefore, the arguer of above passage uses a different product category as an analog which is not convincing enough and mistakenly considers product as brand (这里应该用that引导的限定定语从句). More information or evidences needed (为什么用过去时?) to be provided for the reasoning that foreign copycats fail for the reason other than the noise level.

 

总的来说 还是不错的 只是驳斥点需要再打磨 语言本身希望能更流畅,并且语言的准确性不够

 

分享 举报

发表评论 评论 (20 个评论)

  • stream 2010-10-11 14:57
    好详细好强大!赞一个!!!
  • James 2010-10-11 14:59
    stream: 好详细好强大!赞一个!!!
  • 夏至冬初 2010-10-11 15:25
    好详细好强大!赞一个!!!
  • James 2010-10-11 15:40
    夏至冬初: 好详细好强大!赞一个!!!
    ...
  • smartfay 2010-10-11 16:14
    学习。
  • hsWang 2010-10-11 16:41
    赞....做老师care学生到这个份上, 至少在GMAT培训届几乎没有
  • James 2010-10-11 16:52
    hsWang: 赞....做老师care学生到这个份上, 至少在GMAT培训届几乎没有
    惭愧惭愧
  • flame 2010-10-11 23:41
    哈哈哈~    大家都狂赞老詹啊!
  • 小兔牙 2010-10-12 09:26
    从沙发看到地下室,都是赞扬的....哟嗬嗬....
  • cathylee 2010-10-12 10:31
    ......
  • James 2010-10-12 13:03
    cathylee: ......
    ????
  • torisoul 2010-10-12 20:09
    作为直接受益人拜读了一遍又一遍。。十分受教。。万分感激呀~
    并且貌似感激得晚了。。罪过。。
  • James 2010-10-12 21:45
    torisoul: 作为直接受益人拜读了一遍又一遍。。十分受教。。万分感激呀~
    并且貌似感激得晚了。。罪过。。
  • cathylee 2010-10-13 15:37
    James: ????
    无语中...
  • James 2010-10-13 16:08
    cathylee: 无语中...
    如果你觉得我上面改得不太好 希望你也能提一些建议阿:)
    大家相互学习嘛
  • yimi 2010-10-13 21:55
    强大额……
  • cathylee 2010-10-14 09:20
    James: 如果你觉得我上面改得不太好 希望你也能提一些建议阿:)
    大家相互学习嘛
    不是这个意思啊!我已经把文章复制下来,打算找个时间看看。
  • James 2010-10-14 10:35
    cathylee: 不是这个意思啊!我已经把文章复制下来,打算找个时间看看。
  • shmily56 2010-11-24 15:06
    这个太费时间了,詹姆士你太牛了
  • James 2010-11-24 15:26
    shmily56: 这个太费时间了,詹姆士你太牛了
    ...
涂鸦板