GMAT Quick Links:
GMAT Argument Prompt (Topic) No. 2 and Example Essay
The GMAT Analysis-of-an-Argument section is designed to test your critical-reasoning skills as well as your writing skills. Your task is to critique the stated argument in terms of its cogency (logical soundness) and in terms of the strength of the evidence offered in support of the argument. [Section format and directions]
Argument prompt No. 2 consists of a GMAT-style Argument, followed by the standard directive for responding to GMAT Arguments. Keep in mind: the Argument here is not one of those in the official pool, and so you won't see this one on the actual GMAT.
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.
Each of the four body paragraphs isolates and discusses a different problem with the argument. (A typical GMAT argument will contain 3-4 major reasoning flaws.)
Some phrases are highlighted to help you see the structure of the essay and how it responds to the directive. (The exam's basic word processor does not provide this feature.)
This essay is brief enough to plan and type in 30 minutes, though most test takers would be challenged to organize and present a thorough analysis all of this Argument's flaws within that time limit.
The essay is intended as a benchmark response — one that would earn a top score of 6. But it was not composed under a strict time limit. Be assured that you can attain a top score with an essay that's less polished and somewhat briefer than this one.
In this argument, the Fern County planning commission recommends converting a library into a computer-training facility. However, the commission's argument is problematic in several crucial respects, as discussed below.
The first problem with the argument is that it relies 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 of 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. Lacking any substantiating evidence for this crucial assumption, it is entirely possible that Fern residents have little interest 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 in Fern County there is certain to be a growing need 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, in which case they may very well prefer the status quo.
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 adequately services county residents. The committee overlooks the possibility of a future influx of county residents and the fact that a library's value lies not just in the quantity of its books but also in their quality. Thus without reliable demographic projections and detailed information about the main library's inventory vis-à-vis the needs of Fern's residents, I remain unconvinced 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 Mesa residents as a whole support the plan. Perhaps they are not inclined to voice their opinions, or perhaps they are less concerned than Fern residents about library access.
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 truly benefit from a new computer-training center.