GRE Argument Topic 15

GRE Argument Topic 15

Topic:

The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.

"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

یادداشت زیر مربوط به مدیر بازرگانی رستوران های  Happy  Pancake House  است. "اخیراً مارگارین جایگزین کره در رستوران های Happy Pancake House در جنوب غربی ایالات متحده شده است. با این حال، این تغییر تأثیر کمی بر مشتریان ما داشته است. در واقع، فقط حدود 2 درصد مشتریان شکایت کرده اند، که نشان می دهد به طور متوسط ​​98 نفر از هر100 نفر از این تغییر راضی هستند. بعلاوه، بسیاری از گارسون ها گزارش داده اند كه تعدادی از مشتریانی كه درخواست کره می كنند، وقتی به آنها مارگارین داده می شود، شكایتی نمی كنند. واضح است که یا این مشتریان کره را از مارگارین تشخیص نمی دهند یا از واژه "کره" برای اشاره به کره یا مارگارین استفاده می کنند. "
پاسخی بنویسید که در آن شما درباره یک یا چند توضیح جایگزین بحث می کنید که می تواند بر خلاف توضیحات پیشنهادی شما باشد و توضیح دهید که چگونه توضیح (توضیحات) شما می توانند واقعیتهای ارائه شده در بحث را به طور قابل قبولی ارائه دهند.

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 48, 123, 124, 126 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Strategies
Regardless of the approach you take, consider the following steps:
a) Is there an alternative explanation for the events in question that can invalidate, either in whole or in part, the explanation given in the passage?
b) How can I break the argument into its component parts to understand how they create the whole argument?
c) Can I identify the line of reasoning used to create the argument?
d) What does the author of the argument assume to be true for the argument to be true?
e) Does the line of reasoning validate the conclusion?
f) Can I imagine an example that refutes any or several of the statements in the argument?
g) Am I able to evaluate the argument based on the quality of the facts and reasons presented in it

Based on your responses to all or some of these questions, you must present a well-developed evaluation of the argument. You should take brief notes when you identify the arguments claims, assumptions, and conclusion. Jot down as many alternative explanations as you can along with additional evidence that might support or refute the claims in the argument. Finally, list the changes in the argument that would make the reasoning more solid. It is more important to be specific than it is to have a long list of evidence and examples.
In developing your response, you are asked to develop alternative explanations that could rival the explanation in the argument and explain how your explanation can account for the facts presented in the original explanation.
What conclusions and assumptions are either explicit or implied in the original explanation?

Assumptions:
a) The writer assumes that all customers who do not complain are completely satisfied.
b) The writer assumes that customers who do not complain when given margarine when they ask for butter cannot distinguish the difference.
c) The writer assumes servers are accurately tracking customer reactions to the butter/margarine switch.
d) The writer assumes customers use the terms butter and margarine interchangeably.

Evidence needed to evaluate the argument:
a) Evidence on customer satisfaction surveys to indicate how customers were surveyed on their butter/margarine preferences
b) Information on the number of servers who have interacted with customers requesting butter and given those customers margarine.
c) Information on general preferences for butter and margarine.
d) Information on sales trends for Happy Pancake restaurants during this transitional period.

After completing these steps, you should have enough material to write your analysis. Remember that you are not creating a position of your own; you are evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the existing argument. You do not have to include all of the points that you have created in your prewriting. In fact, during the process of drafting your analysis, other ideas may come to mind, and, if they strengthen your analysis, you should include them.

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 48, 123, 124, 126 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

The business manager of Happy Pancake Restaurants reports that butter has been replaced with margarine at restaurants throughout the southwest. Customers have not been informed of the change, and, in fact, when customers of Happy Pancake request butter, they are given margarine instead. Based on what he concludes is a dearth of negative customer feedback, the business manager has determined that Happy Pancake customers either cannot distinguish butter from margarine, or that they use the two terms interchangeably. However, the manager’s conclusion may not be the only explanation for the observations noted.

First, the manager notes that only 2% of customers complained, and concludes, based on this figure, that 98% of customers are happy. That is not necessarily the case. It may be that 98% of customers are less than satisfied, but not dissatisfied to the degree that they feel it necessary to lodge a complaint. If a customer has enjoyed his breakfast, found his pancakes fluffy, his coffee strong, and his fruit fresh, and the only disappointment was a pat of processed margarine where he expected sweet, creamy butter, he might not be motivated to fill out a complaint card or summon a restaurant manager to engage in a lengthy diatribe. He might, however, tell a friend or neighbor, the next time they are discussing where to have breakfast that Happy Pancake seems to be “going downhill” and doesn’t even serve “real butter” anymore. The business manager will remain under the impression that this, and 98% of his customers are happy, but they are, in fact, growing slowly disillusioned with their once-favored breakfast spot.

Second, the manager points out that “a number of customers” who ask for butter do not complain when they receive margarine instead. That suggests that “a number of customers,” in fact, do complain, when they receive margarine. What is the difference between these two numbers? Are servers tracking these complaints and reporting them to the business manager, or is he basing this on anecdotal observations? Without more concrete information on the number of people who reject margarine when they’ve requested butter, the business manager cannot use this information to support his claim.

Based on the vague notion of “a number of customers” who do not react negatively to being duped when requesting butter and receiving margarine, the business manager has drawn two possible conclusions. The first is that people cannot tell the difference between the two substances. That may well be the case. Or, it may be the case that people simply cannot be bothered to recall a server, who may also appear very busy in a breakfast rush at a busy restaurant, to correct her error. Customers may assume the server has made an error in bringing them margarine. In some cases, that error may result in customers tipping their servers less.

The business manager’s second conclusion is that customers use the terms butter and margarine interchangeably to refer to either butter or margarine. This is perhaps the most far-fetched of his assumptions. He provides no evidence to suggest that Happy Pancake customers, in particular, are unable to distinguish between these two spreads, and since the colors and textures of the two foods are typically dissimilar, it seems unlikely that would be the case.

While the business manager may be trying to make a case to support discontinuing serving butter in Happy Pancake restaurants without impacting customers, he has not successfully shown that would be the case. What is more likely is that busy people are less likely to complain about a small part of their meal, such as butter or margarine, and that complaints made to servers are not being tracked accurately. The business manager would be better served to study this issue more closely before taking further action.

 

Sample 2:

The given argument draws the conclusion that the Happy Pancake House should replace butter by margarine in its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as this change has been successful in its restaurants in the southwestern part of the United States. The arguer presents some facts as evidence in proof of the claim that replacing butter by margarine has been successful throughout the southwestern United States. However, a careful scrutiny of the facts that have been presented shows that the said facts weaken the given argument instead of strengthening it. Each of the facts has been discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.

Firstly, the assumption that 98 percent of the consumers must be happy with the change is baseless because not complaining is not an indication that they are happy. They may not have complained due to varied reasons. They may not have been able to distinguish between the taste of butter and margarine. Even if they were able to distinguish the change, they probably did not complain as they thought that butter was perhaps not available. Additionally, one cannot ignore the fact that most people would avoid complaining for a trivial thing such as being served margarine instead of butter. However, there is a chance that if they are continuously served margarine instead of butter, they may stop coming to the restaurant altogether. This is because people who are used to having butter may not be open to the idea of having margarine in its place.

Secondly, the argument does not clearly state that the consumers are told that they have been served margarine instead of butter in spite of their asking for butter. They may not be complaining, but there is a chance that they would not like to come back to the restaurant again. If this change is being made without informing the customers and waiting to see their reaction, then there is a chance that this may adversely affect the image of the restaurant as the consumers may lodge a complaint that they were duped into eating something other than what they had ordered for. Therefore, assuming that people use the term ‘butter’ to refer to either butter or margarine can have serious repercussions if this assumption turns out to be false.

Lastly, nowhere in the argument, has the arguer explicitly discussed the prices of butter and margarine. Therefore, assuming that serving margarine will be cost-effective is far-fetched. Moreover, it is not necessary that what seems to be successful in one part of the country would be successful in the other part as well. This is because of the difference in the demographic make-up of different parts of the same country.

The argument could have been better substantiated had there been enough evidence that clearly supported the claim that consumers treat butter and margarine at par as far as their taste and quality is concerned. Also, there should have been more evidence in support of the claim that the consumers in the southeast and northeast parts of the country will react in a similar manner as the consumers in the southwestern United States. Therefore, the argument sounds unconvincing due to lack of sufficient evidence in support of the claim made.


نظرات کاربران

هنوز نظری درج نشده است!