[推荐]AWA strategy-3

vagrant

Argument-Analysis:

Example one

The following appeared in a memo from the manager of Uppercuts, a hair salon located in a suburb of the city of Apton, to the salon owner:

“ According to a nationwide demographic study, more and more people today are moving from suburbs to downtown areas. So in order to boost sagging profits at UpperCuts, we should relocate the salon from its current location in Apton’s suburban mall to downtown Apton, while retaining the slaon’s decidedly upscale approach in terms of services, products, and pricing. After all, Hair-dooz, our chief competitor at the mall, has just relocated downtown and is thriving at its new location. Moreover, the most prosperous hair salon in nearby Brainard is located in that city’s downtown area. By emulating these two successful salons, Uppercuts is sure to become more profitable.”
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.

Citing a general demographic trend and certain evidence about two other hair salons, the manager of Uppercuts(UC) concludes here that UC should relocate from suburban to downtown Apton. However, the manager’s argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the argument assumes that Apton’s demographic trend reflects the national trend. Yet, the mere fact that one hair salon has moved downtown hardly suffices to infer any such trend in Apton; Hair-Dooz might owe its success at its new location to factors unrelated to Apton’s demographics. Without better evidence of a demographic shift toward downtown Apton, it is just as likely that there is no such trend in Apton. For that matter, the trend might be in the opposite direction, in which event the manager’s recommendation would amount to especially poor advice.
Even if Apton’s demographics do reflect the national trend, it is unfair to assume that UC will become more profitable simply by relocating downtown. It is entirely possible that the types of people who prefer living in downtown areas tend not to patronize upscale salons. It is also possible that Hair-Dooz will continue to impede UC’s profitability downtown, just as it might have at the mall. Moreover, UC’s sagging profits might have resulted from mismanagement or other problems unrelated to location. Without ruling out these and other reasons why UC might not benefit from demographic trend, the manager cannot convince me that UC would increase its profits by moving downtown.

Nor can the manager justify the recommended course of action on the basis of the Brainard salon’s success. Perhaps hair salons generally fare better in downtown Brainard than downtown Apton, due to demographic differences between the two areas. Or perhaps the Brainard salon owes its success not to its location but rather to savvy marketing or especially talented stylists. Or perhaps the salon thrives only because it is long-established in downtown Brainnard- an advantage that UC clearly would not have in its new location. In short, the manager cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be a false analogy between two hair salons.

In sum, the argument is dubious at best. To strengthen it the manager should provide better evidence of a demographic shift in Apton toward the downtown area and clear evidence that those demographics portend success there for an upscale hair salon. To better evaluate the argument I would need to know why Hair-Dooz relocated, what factors have contributed to the Brainard salon’s success, and what factor other than location might have contributed to UC’s sagging profits at the mall.

Example two:

The following appeared in a memo from the sales director of Aura Cosmetics Company:
"The best way to reverse Aura Cosmetic's recent decline in profitability is to require each new employee in Aura's sales division to enroll in the popular SureSale seminar. Last year, the software company TechAide began incorporating SureSale's week-long seminar into its training program for all new sales employees, and since that time TechAide's total sales have increased dramatically. Also, according to a recent article in a reputable business magazine, the SureSale sales system has been widely adopted among the nation's twenty largest companies, and the employee turnover rate at these companies is lower today than five years ago. Therefore, by enrolling Aura sales employees in the SureSale seminar Aura will also retain its highest caliber salespeople."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.

Now here's a sample response to this question. As you read the response, keep in mind:
.I didn't compose this response under timed conditions; the essay is intended as a model—or benchmark. Don't worry: You can attain a top score of 6 with an essay that is a bit briefer and less polished than mine.
.This response meets all the official criteria for a score of 6 (the highest possible score).

Sample Response (525 Words)
In this argument Aura's sales director relies on certain anecdotal evidence about one other company, as well as certain statistics about general trends among large companies, to convince us of the merits of enrolling certain ABC employees in the SureSale seminar. Close inspection of this evidence reveals, however, that it provides scant support at best for the director's argument.
Turning first to the anecdotal evidence, the director assumes too hastily that the SureSale seminar--rather than some other phenomenon--was responsible for the increase in TechAide's total sales. Perhaps the increase simply reflected general economic or supply-demand trends, or a misstep on the part of TechAide's chief competitor. For that matter, perhaps the increase is attributable to certain TechAide salespeople who are not new employees and who did not take the seminar. Without eliminating these and other plausible explanations for the increase in sales at TechAide, the director cannot convince me that the SureSale seminar was responsible for the increase--let alone that it would also enhance sales at Aura.
Even if TechAide's sales increase is attributable to SureSale, the director's argument rests on the additional assumption that the seminar would provide a similar benefit at Aura. However, the memo fails to account for possible differences between Aura and TechAide that might have a bearing on the seminar's effectiveness. For example, perhaps the SureSale system is effective for companies that provide services and/or are technology-oriented, but ineffective for companies such as Aura that offer traditional products. If so, the memo's recommendation would be indefensible--at least based on TechAide's experience.
Turning to the memo's statistics about the largest twenty companies, the director fails to account for any possible reason--other than the SureSale method--for the decline in employee turnover. Even if SureSale deserves credit for this decline, it is unreasonable to conclude on this basis that Aura would benefit similarly by adopting the SureSale method. The increase in employee turnover at Aura might be due to certain factors--such as working conditions--that would remain unaffected by the seminar. If so, then the proposed course of action might not suffice to retain Aura's best salespeople.
Finally, even assuming the SureSale seminar would serve to enhance Aura's profitability and reduce its employee turnover, the director has not convinced me that the proposed course of action is a necessary means toward these ends. Perhaps some other sales seminar, or certain cost-cutting measures, would prove more effective in enhancing Aura's profitability. By the same token, perhaps some other course of action--such as revising Aura's personnel policies or work environment--would be more effective in reducing employee turnover.
In sum, as it stands the director's argument is weak. To strengthen it the director should provide statistical evidence showing that companies similar to Aura that have adopted the SureSale program have tended to benefit from it--both in terms of profitability and employee turnover. To better assess the argument, it would be useful to compare the proven benefits of the SureSale seminar to those of similar seminars. It would also be useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of alternative courses of action--including various revenue-enhancing as well as cost-cutting measures.








Example three:

Analysis of an Argument
(1 Question--30 Minutes)
The following appeared in a recent report by the Fern County planning commission:
"In light of the increasing percentage of our nation's population turning to the Internet as a source of reference material, Fern County should close the ancillary branch of its public library, and convert that facility into a computer training center for use by county residents. The converted facility would fill what is certain to be a growing need among Fern residents for computer training. At the same time, since the county library's main branch already contains more volumes per resident than any other county library in the state, it will adequately serve the needs of Fern County residents. Moreover, Fern residents are sure to support this plan; after all, in nearby Mesa County only a few residents have objected to that county's plan to close all but one of its public libraries in the near future."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.

Below is a sample response to this Argument. As you read the response, keep in mind:
.This response meets all the official criteria for a score of 6 (the highest possible score).
.I didn't compose this response under timed conditions, so don't worry if yours isn't as lengthy or as polished. Take comfort: You can attain a top score of 6 with a briefer and less-polished essay.

Sample Response (550 Words)
In this argument the Fern County planning commission recommends converting a library into a computer-training facility. However, the committee's recommendation rests on numerous unproven, and dubious, assumptions--about the impact of Internet access on libraries, about Fern County residents, about the adequacy of the main library, and about Mesa County and its residents. As a result, the committee's argument is unconvincing at best, as discussed below.
To begin with, the committee's argument rests on two unsubstantiated assumptions involving the cited national trend in Internet usage. One such assumption is that increasing use of the Internet as a reference source will necessarily result in decreased use, or demand, for public libraries. While this might be the case, the commission must provide firm evidence to substantiate this assumption; otherwise, it is equally plausible that the cited trend will actually enhance the popularity of libraries by stimulating intellectual and cultural interest. A second such assumption is that Fern residents reflect the national trend. The committee provides no substantiating evidence for this crucial assumption; lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that Fern residents have little interest--for whatever reason--in using the Internet for this purpose, and therefore that the proposed plan is not in their best interests.
Another problem with the argument involves the report's assertion that that there is certain to be a growing need in Fern County for computer training. In context, this claim appears to be based on the national trend in Internet usage. Yet even assuming Fern residents reflect this trend, it is entirely possible that Fern residents as a group are already highly proficient in using computers and the Internet. If so, Fern residents might very well prefer the status quo, and would not support the proposed plan.
Yet another problem with the argument involves the fact that Fern County's main library boasts a large number of books per resident. This fact alone is scant evidence that the main branch is adequate to service county residents. The committee overlooks the possibility of a future influx of county residents. The committee also ignores that the library's value lies not just in the quantity of its books but also in the quality of its books. Thus without reliable demographic projections and detailed information about the main library's inventory vis-à-vis the needs of Fern's residents, the committee cannot convince me that the main branch alone would serve the needs of county residents.
A final problem involves Mesa's plan to close all but one library. We are not informed whether Mesa residents are yet aware of the County's plan. Even if the plan has been made public, the fact that it has met little opposition does not necessarily mean that residents as a whole support the plan. Perhaps Mesa residents as a group are not inclined to voice their opinions. Or perhaps as a group they are far less concerned about library access--for whatever reason--than Fern residents are.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, rather than relying on a dubious analogy between Fern and Mesa counties, the commission should provide better evidence--perhaps by way of a countywide survey--that Fern residents will increasingly use the Internet as a substitute for the ancillary library branch, and that they would benefit from a new computer-training center.




Example Four

The following appeared in an advertisement for United Motors trucks:
"Last year the local television-news program In Focus reported in its annual car-and-truck safety survey that over the course of the last ten years United Motors vehicles were involved in at least thirty percent fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles built by any other single manufacturer. Now United is developing a one-of-a-kind computerized crash warning system for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone concerned with safety who is in the market for a new truck this year should buy a United Motors truck."
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.

Essay (composed under a 30-minute time limit)
Score (on the 0-6 scale): 6

A person viewing this advertisement might at first glance be convinced that a safety-minded truck buyer should buy a new United Motors truck rather than some other new truck. After all, United Motors has an ostensible superior safety record over the past 10 years, and the company seems committed to further improving the safety of its new trucks. However, if one examines the evidence provide in the ad more carefully, one sees that the ad's success turns on consumers blindly accepting numerous assumptions about the statistics and other facts in the ad. I will discuss each one in turn below.
First I turn to the statistic given in the ad. The "30%" statistic does not differentiate trucks from cars. We are asked to assume that this safety statustic is accurate even for trucks alone - in other words, 30% fewer United Motors trucks (not just vehicles generally) have been involved in fatal accidents than other trucks. It is also presumed that the 10-year record for safety applies to the company's new line of trucks. But is this necessarily so? The ad offers no proof or evidence to back up this implicit claim. An astute consumer would require more information about the safety of United trucks (not cars) compared to other trucks manufactured during the most recent year or two. (However, there might not be enough data yet about this year's models.) Finally, the statistic cannot be relied upon as accurate unless we know that the survey was fair and objective. (What if United motors is a sponsor of In Focus? Could we trust the truthfulness of accuracy of the statistics? No!)
These are not the only reasons why the statistic in the ad does not give us enough evidence to support the argument that new United trucks are safer than other new trucks. The statistic really says nothing explicit about why this is the case. Is it because United trucks are safer? Or becase United truck drivers are better drivers? Or because of some other reason? Once the company can prove that the safety of its trucks is the reason why they are in fewer accidents, then the statistic becomes valid to the intelligent consumer deciding bewteen a United truck and another brand.
Besides the assumptions about the statistic in the ad, another assumption involves second part of the ad - about the new crash warning system United is developing for its trucks. Presumably the new system will not be available for a while because it is still being developed. However, the ad tries to convince us to buy a new United truck now based on this evidence, which is illogical. Once United's trucks have the system and it can be proven that the system adds to the safety of the driver and other occupants, then I might be swayed toward purchasing a United truck as opposed to another brand on the basis of the safety factor. But not until then.
In sum, in light of all of the assumptions listed above needed for the argument to "have teeth" but missing from the ad, no consumer should buy a United truck based soley on this ad's false appeal to safety. Consumers should not be hoodwinked by an advertisement like this one that leaves out important information about how an impressive statistic is arrived at, or that attempts to entice the consumer based on impressive but unproven R&D (especiaaly when today's United Motors truck buyers are the ones who actually paying for the R&D but don't receive the benefits from it.)
Commentary on Essay (Score: 6)
This outstanding essay exhibits very strong analytical and organizational skills, as well as a firm grasp of language, grammar and syntax. Ultimately it is the essay's incisive, comprehensive and well-organized analysis—not its mechanical aspects (grammar, syntax, diction)—that places it squarely in the highest score category.
The essay commences with an introductory paragraph that is rhetorically effective, then proceeds to identify nearly all of the major problems with the argument, in a logical sequence, each point connected with the next by helpful transitions. In the three middle paragraphs the writer challenges the following assumptions underlying the argument:
o that the statistical datum is an accurate gauge of the comparative safety level of United Motors trucks (rather than vehicles generally)
o that the statistical datum—which involves prior years—is an accurate reflection of current conditions
o that the survey results are unbiased
o that the past fatal-accident record of United Motors trucks is due to the truck's safety feature (rather than to some other factor)
o that the new crash-warning system is included in current United Motors trucks and serves its intended purpose
The only major flaw in the argument that this essay neglects to identify and discuss is that the statistic fails to account for non-fatal accidents. However, this single oversight is far outweighed by what is otherwise a comprehensive critique.
The final paragraph serves as a stylistic and rhetorically-effective recap. (However, the essay's closing parenthetical remark about R&D is unnecessary and appears to be an afterthought.)
Admittedly, the essay does suffer from various problems in grammar and expression. These problems vary widely:
o improper idiom ("differentiate trucks from cars")
o several instances of redundancy ("The ad offers no proof or evidence," "reasons why" and "because of some other reason")
o faulty parallelism ("deciding between a United truck and another brand" and "safety of United trucks ... compared to other trucks")
o loose syntax ("in light of all of the assumptions listed above needed for the argument to "have teeth" but missing from the ad...").
However, these flaws are neither major nor frequent enough to warrant lowering the essay's score to a 5. A GRE or GMAT reader would overlook this essay's occasional word omissions and other typos, since