GMAT机经是指GMAT考生对GMAT考试的总结和试题的回忆。可以说GMAT机经是GMAT考试真题的再现。很多考生都将机经作为备考资料之一，正确使用GMAT机经对于GMAT考生来说是很有帮助的。下面，楷维留学小编为GMAT考生分享GMAT写作机经:来自百货商店销售经理的建议。

　　GMAT写作机经:来自百货商店销售经理的建议【原始】

　　The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department store.

　　“Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased, on average, for the three-month period between August 1 and October 31. Stores that sell products for the home reported that, on average, their profits increased during this same period. Clearly, consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. To take advantage of this trend, we should reduce the size of our clothing departments and enlarge our home furnishings and household products departments.”

　　来自百货商店销售经理的建议：

　　本地服装店报告说从8月1号到10月31号的3个月里他们的平均利润下降。销售家庭用品的商店却报告同期的平均利润上升。很明显，顾客正选择为他们的家里购买用品而不是买衣物。为了利用这个趋势，我们应该缩减我们的服装部规模而扩大家庭装饰和家务用品部

　　GMAT写作机经:来自百货商店销售经理的建议【思路】

　　1、 样本不足(三个月的时间太短不足以说明存在这样的趋势)

　　A period of three month is too short to draw a general conclusion of the overall trend.

　　2、时地全等all things are equal(过去三个月的趋势不代表未来也会如此)

　　The past three months' trend does not guarantee the same in the future.

　　3、可疑调查 survey is doubtful

　　Whether the reports from the local clothing stores and stores that sell products for the home are reliable or not are still open to doubt, thus making the author's suggestion groundless.

　　4、单因果错误Casual-relationship——有他因(服装销量降低和家居销量上升，是否存在必然的关系?可能是其他因素，如天气，偶发事件造成这种结果)。

　　5、无根据假设Gratuitous Assumption： A 不一定导致B(三个月的时间是否能说明一种趋势?)

　　GMAT写作机经:来自百货商店销售经理的建议【范文】

　　Based upon sales reports over a three-month period that indicate an increase in profits for stores that sell products for the home and a decrease in profits for clothing stores, the business manager of a department store concludes that consumers are choosing to purchase home furnishings rather than clothing. On the basis of this conclusion, the manager recommends a reduction in the size of the clothing department and an increase in the size of the home-furnishings department. This recommendation is problematic in two critical respects.

　　In the first place, the author’s conclusion that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing is based upon too small a sample. Data gathered from a three-month period is insufficient to establish the conclusion drawn from it. It is quite possible that the three-month period chosen is idiosyncratic and not representative of entire year’s sales. If so, reducing the size of the clothing departments and enlarging the home-furnishings departments may be a costly mistake.

　　In the second place, the data collected during the three month period may be biased. The fact that the data reflects sales in local stores is cause for concern. It is possible that the sales trend in a particular location is not representative of sales in other regions. For example, sales of clothing in Florida during the winter months are likely to be quite different from sales of clothing in Alaska during the same period.

　　In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. A more convincing argument must provide additional sales data, collected at different periods of the year and at different locations, that substantiates the trend in question.