Originally posted by qweewq11
I have a question about the writing sample. This weekend I got a practice prompt that was:
"In business, competition is superior to cooperation." Usual prompt: explain statement, when is cooperation superior to competition, and when is one better than the other?
So here is what I don't understand. The word they use is "superior." I can look at this two ways:
1) For the CONSUMER, competition is superior (i.e. better) b/c it keeps prices down, maximizes choice, etc.
2) For the BUSINESS, competition is superior b/c it keeps them innovative, etc.
So my question is:
when explaining the statement, should I say that there are two ways are looking at it, from the business perspective and the consumer perspective? Then it seems like I would need two counterexamples?
Or should I just choose one and stick with it? Help! I don't like the writing sample
I don't see why you couldn't do both in the allotted time. I got a Q on my essay, not sure if it matters. First what I'd do is DEFINE what superior meant to you. That might keep things simple. Then incorporate everything into the paragraph.
For eg my pre-write would probably go like this: (note, it's a very abbreviated version)
1st Para. Competition is superior than cooperation. Why? Competition is better for BOTH, the market and the consumer because of although goods get innovative and the market on the whole advances, the prices are kept down by constant competition.
What else comes out of it: low prices, if there's competition then there's consumers are not easily exploited by companies if they increase prices. Why? Because it's competitor with the lower prices would be favored by the customer. Also, another advantage is that "the underdog" get's his day if his goods were "better" or more advantageous to the customers. Thus, competition is superior to cooperation from both angles, consumers and marketers. An example of this would be--PC versus Mac systems; hot-dog venders at a baseball game etc.
2nd para: Competition may not necessarily be better than cooperation. Why is cooperation better? Because by the merging of two companies or resources, there is potential to make even more profit AND at the same time please customers by enchancing their lifestyle. For eg: how the TV companies merged with computer companies to come up with a product that now allows video conferencing across the world. This wouldn't have happened if two companies wouldn't have merged; customers are pleased because not only can they now do business through the comforts of their own home, but families can keep in touch better through the webcams. Certainly, if two companies merged and added to the lifestyles of the customers, they customers would be willing to pay the price for the commodity. Here, cooperation between two companies is much more beneficial to the market on the whole, versus competition. If the two companies would have instead competed to produce the SAME product, there would probably be a loss of time (since it would have taken longer to invent something like that) AND financial resources to research on a new product. Here in lies the beauty of cooperation, where each individual company brings it's own resources to add to it's customer's lifestyles, while at the same time make their own profit.
-----------------------
Anwyay, I typed this in just a few mins but you know what I mean.
