GMAT Essay Topic 501 - The following appeared in a proposal from the development office at Platonic University. "Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase." Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
Author: pawaschand | Date: March 28, 2010 | Score:5
The development office of Platonic University's proposal to generate revenues from alumni network is definitely a good idea; but needs to address certain assumptions before acting on the proposal.The proposal is based on "Copycat Marketing" principle. Though there is a evidence for the propos...
This essay has been rated a score of 5. Essays in this score category are paid content. Please Register to gain access to this essay.
Under the same topic
It is unpersuasive that by renaming the university buildings after donation the university are able to increase donation. It rests more on unsupported assumptions than on evidence.
First, the development office assumes that Platonic University will make a success because Greene University succeeded in the way. On the other hand, it might be possible that since Greene University was so famous, donors wanted to make their donations to Greene University. They might expect the high return against donations by advertising their name. On the other hand, Platonic University may not be famous. If it were the case, giving the naming right to the donor who makes the largest amount of donation will not bear fruits. To strengthen the conclusion of the office, the author should provide the evidence that shows the naming right worth of large amount of donation.
Second, the office makes an assumption that the alumni and other wealthy people want to donate for the naming right. Yet it is possible that they may not be interested in the name right. Since they could not enjoy any profit by the naming the university, they may not make donations. Or, they may love the present name. In the situation, the university will not have the donations increase. To draw the author's conclusion, the author should give us more information that the alumni and wealth people are interested in the naming right and in changing the name.
In conclusion, for the reasons I mentioned above, the conclusion that giving the naming right to the donor increase the donation is unconvincing. If the author had given more information about the points I discussed above, the argument would have been more logical.