GRE Argument Task: Practice Test 2, Please review and Grade

[hmnshu]

Argument Task:

The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of video rental stores.

 

“In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore’s ten video rental stores. Since we are famous for our special bargains, raising our rental prices is not a viable way to improve profits. Last month our store in downtown Marston significantly decreased its operating expenses by closing at 6:00 P.M. rather than 9:00 P.M. and by reducing its stock by eliminating all movies released more than five years ago. Therefore, in order to increase profits without jeopardizing our reputation for offering great movies at low prices, we recommend implementing similar changes in our other nine Movies Galore stores.”

 

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

 

Essay:

The argument claims that Movies Galore is being in loss and to regain profit, they must reduce operating cost by limiting store hours and remove 5 years old stock from the stores. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

 

First, the argument readily assumes that they are famous of offering movies at low prices and increasing rates doesn't look like viable solution. This statement is a stretch with no evidence supporting whether increasing rates would have caused any issues so far. And it does not provide idea of market analysis which would have made them stay with low rates. For example, if company offers good quality with low cost makes it obvious for them to gain from it. If they plan not to increase rates and check whether it generates money or not. Clearly, store won't get to know whether prices they offer is very low with respect to operating expenses which would have been damaging revenue since long time. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that it was tested before which did not end well.

 

Second, the argument claims that only way to make profit is by reducing operating store expenses with no information from the store where it is already applied whether it was profitable or not. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between operating cost decrease and profit from it. To illustrate, The store where they changed closing time to 6:00 PM instead of 9:00 could lose customers renting movies after 6:00 PM which is actually usual time when people think of renting movie for spending evening hours with their home theatre.

While, Removing 5 year old stock also undermines argument as people always tend to watch movies which is high in recommendation and that could be more than 10 years old. In fact, it is not at all clear if there was profit with new methods rather planning to start same logic in other stores. If the argument had provided evidence that the store has gained then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

 

Finally, owner's plan could be invisible and based on his experience and instinct by decreasing availability of stock and daily schedule timing which could push fear of loss for customers and reign back on movie rental market. Still, was it owners deliberate plan? How would reducing operating cost marks profit? Do we have solid ground to make use of new plan? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

 

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about new method stats and customers feedback and if there is deliberate plan which is not discussed. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case profitable plan is based on mere weak assumption with no proof. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

[HealthPolicyPhD]

I would grade this as a 3.5 or 4. You have a fairly good command of language and organization of thought is clear. There area  few sentences where ideas are not clearly expressed and grammar/ syntax feels muddled (ex: For example, if company offers good quality with low cost makes it obvious for them to gain from it. If they plan not to increase rates and check whether it generates money or not. Clearly, store won't get to know whether prices they offer is very low with respect to operating expenses which would have been damaging revenue since long time. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that it was tested before which did not end well).

Your writing and vocabulary is strong, but there are some consistent grammatical mistakes (most notably, articles like "the" are missing) and a few one-time mistakes (see paragraph break at fourth paragraph, and the incorrect capitalization of the word "Removing").

All in all, great job!

[hmnshu]

Thank you @HealthPolicyPhD for your thorough read and feedback. And I would like to see your responses to my further AWA posts.:)

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by hmnshu
spelling correction