The argument claims that < restate the argument >. Stated in this way the argument fails to take into account a few key factors which could call the conclusion to question. It rests on some assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and falls apart at the seams.
Paragraph 1:
1. Firstly, ( )
2. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way.
3. The argument would have been much clearer if ( )
Paragraph 2:
1. Second ( ). This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument ( ).
2. For example,
3. This argument would have sounded a lot more convincing if
4. In addition, it would have been strengthened ever further if the argument provided evidence that
Paragraph 3:
1. Finally, the argument concludes that
2. However, what is not clear here is ( )
3. If there had been evidence to support ( )
[Please visit www.gogogmat.com for more tips for GMAT preparation.]
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of the faulty assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had drawn upon examples as suggested, and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.
Kommentare