|
Home >> GMAT >> Essays >> Essay - 74
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily
newspaper.
�Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware
and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-ayear
giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus
Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are
now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.�
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this
prediction are similarities that exist between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video-game
hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the
failure of the other. This argument is unconvincing.
The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion
Page numbers AWA
that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B�s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that conclusion. Company B
did not fail because of its market share or because of the general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored
with its particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video-game hardware and
software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail.
An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant differences between Company A and Company B, which further
undermine the conclusion. For example, Company A�s line of products may differ from Company B�s in that children do not become
bored with them. Another possible difference is that Company B�s share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas
Company A has a large share of the international market.
In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant
similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them.
|
