(taken from the GRE Pool of Argument Topics)



While the rationale behind the company's action seems logical at first glance, in order to decide whether the prediction offered is reasonable and whether the argument itself provides the required evidence to make the mentioned decision to use higher quality materials, there are certain questions that need to be answered before conclusively determining whether the taken action will be fruitful. As these questions are imposed but remain unanswered, this damages the whole argument's credibility as it reveals a weak logical basis for the mentioned solution to the problem, and the prediction regarding its success.

First, the use of surveys as an argument requires them to be as specific as possible, but in this case the author fails to provide the sufficient specificity. This in turn damages the prediction's reasonability, thus lowers its chances of success. Specifically, the company's president predicts that Primo Doll's revenues will surpass those of Optima Doll's. However, the surveys mentioned only indicate that parents would be likely to purchase the advanced Elkie model, and they do not compare the popularity of the 2 toy companies. If the question of Primo Doll's popularity in relation to Optima Doll remains unanswered, then the absence of the latter leaves an open room for the possibility that Optima Doll would still be more popular than Primo Doll.

Furthermore, the given data only regards Primo doll's most successful product, and the author uses this partial data to predict the whole company's profits. It can be the case that the rest of Primo Doll's products are very unpopular, while Optima Doll's numerous products have approximately the same, high popularity level. As the question of Primo Doll's products overall popularity and success rate remains unanswered, it leaves room for the option mentioned previously, where even though Primo Doll's Elkie managed to be on the same level with Optima Doll's products, quantity would beat quality in this case and the prediction will be proved false. Consequently, the president must provide further evidence to (of) Primo Doll's overall popularity in order to have a full and realistic view of the situation.

Finally, the author's reasoning and prediction assumes (assume) that the materials that make the dolls are the only major factor, an assumption which is false. It is also important to consider the design of a doll, as it clearly takes a crucial role in determining the product's durability and reliability. For example, even a doll made out of diamonds will not be durable if the product is essentially a very long and thick (thin) wire which is connected to a metal weight. As the other aspects of the Elkie doll remain unaddressed by the president and the surveys (as far as we know), the advanced Elkie doll may turn out to have the same durability rate of (as) the previous Elkie model. This in turn makes the chances of the prediction to be correct even lower than before, making it even more unreasonable.

In conclusion, we can clearly see that there are logical fallacies and unaddressed questions that have been overlooked by the author. If the president wants his prediction to be correct, or even be reasonable enough to bother considering it, he must address these questions by further research and by providing solid evidence to back up his arguments and overall reasoning. Only by doing that, the president will have a realistic view of the situation and will be able to come up with reasonable predictions.


--------------------------------------------------

I'd appreciate a review of my response, including tips for improving my writing (even one thing is good). An estimation of my overall score would also be very helpful.
I typed this response in ScoreItNow and got a score of 5, but a second review will be helpful.
The green text is corrections made after the 30 minutes.

Thanks.