Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.- Dec 14
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
03 Mar 2022, 02:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The arguments states that a pet food company had recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that has consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. Further the argument states that after the recall, the company had tested the samples form the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in per food. And thus the argument concludes by stating that food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. After analysing this argument, we can say for sure that the author assumes few of the cases and ignores few which can prove this argument to be unwarranted. The stated or unstated assumptions made by the author are as below.
The author states that that a company recalls 4 million pounds of pet food in response to the complaints that the pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. After through testing of the recalled pet food, the company concluded that the chemicals used are approved for pet food, but few assumptions are made by the company here. First that the 4 million pounds of pet food that they had recalled will fairly represent for all the food distributed, through out the company's reach. Second assumption made by the company is that the chemicals although approved for pet food are in within the limits of use, i.e. the chemicals aren't overused. The third assumption that is made is that, even if the chemicals are approved for dog food and and they are well within their limits, there is no chemical reaction between two or more of the chemicals which might alter the quality of the food. The company further assumes that the food that is shipped is stored in appropriate condition, cold or warm, dry or moist, as per the product is suited. The company also assumes that there is no problem with the packaging of the product and the product is properly sealed with appropriate amount of preservatives in them.
Even if the company had meticulously followed the appropriate standard mentioned in the aforementioned points, the company fails to assumes that there might not be any problem with their product per se but, few of the animals might be allergic to one or many of the ingredients present in their product. The argument is concluded by stating that company does not fell responsible for the recent happenings and should not devote further resources to the investigation. I my opinion this is the most stupid thing a company might do if they want to grow. Even if recent complaints registered are not directly because of the food product, one things might be for certain that these signs of illness is some how connected with the pet food that the company is manufacturing. The most efficient way of publicity is through word of mouth. If the customer fells that these recent developments is because of the product the company is making the company should do more to investigate in the matter even if the customer is proved to be wrong. If the problem is not dealt with, of course there might not be any legal complication if the company follows the standards but the company will start loosing customers as many of the customers will try to protect their pets from getting sick by the company's pet food.
In conclusion, as there is not enough conclusive evidence nor their is proper statistical data stating what kind of pet is being affected and any peculiarities associated with it, the company should not just close the case and act like nothing has happened. There should be through investigation in that matter even if the resources are invested (yes i will say invested as the company is not waisting any resources rather investing in making its product more suited for all kinds of pets), it will come out to become an asset. All in all the argument depends solely upon the assumptions state above and the argument might become unwarranted if any of the above statement comes out to be true.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
__________
The arguments states that a pet food company had recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that has consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. Further the argument states that after the recall, the company had tested the samples form the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in per food. And thus the argument concludes by stating that food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. After analysing this argument, we can say for sure that the author assumes few of the cases and ignores few which can prove this argument to be unwarranted. The stated or unstated assumptions made by the author are as below.
The author states that that a company recalls 4 million pounds of pet food in response to the complaints that the pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. After through testing of the recalled pet food, the company concluded that the chemicals used are approved for pet food, but few assumptions are made by the company here. First that the 4 million pounds of pet food that they had recalled will fairly represent for all the food distributed, through out the company's reach. Second assumption made by the company is that the chemicals although approved for pet food are in within the limits of use, i.e. the chemicals aren't overused. The third assumption that is made is that, even if the chemicals are approved for dog food and and they are well within their limits, there is no chemical reaction between two or more of the chemicals which might alter the quality of the food. The company further assumes that the food that is shipped is stored in appropriate condition, cold or warm, dry or moist, as per the product is suited. The company also assumes that there is no problem with the packaging of the product and the product is properly sealed with appropriate amount of preservatives in them.
Even if the company had meticulously followed the appropriate standard mentioned in the aforementioned points, the company fails to assumes that there might not be any problem with their product per se but, few of the animals might be allergic to one or many of the ingredients present in their product. The argument is concluded by stating that company does not fell responsible for the recent happenings and should not devote further resources to the investigation. I my opinion this is the most stupid thing a company might do if they want to grow. Even if recent complaints registered are not directly because of the food product, one things might be for certain that these signs of illness is some how connected with the pet food that the company is manufacturing. The most efficient way of publicity is through word of mouth. If the customer fells that these recent developments is because of the product the company is making the company should do more to investigate in the matter even if the customer is proved to be wrong. If the problem is not dealt with, of course there might not be any legal complication if the company follows the standards but the company will start loosing customers as many of the customers will try to protect their pets from getting sick by the company's pet food.
In conclusion, as there is not enough conclusive evidence nor their is proper statistical data stating what kind of pet is being affected and any peculiarities associated with it, the company should not just close the case and act like nothing has happened. There should be through investigation in that matter even if the resources are invested (yes i will say invested as the company is not waisting any resources rather investing in making its product more suited for all kinds of pets), it will come out to become an asset. All in all the argument depends solely upon the assumptions state above and the argument might become unwarranted if any of the above statement comes out to be true.
03 Mar 2022, 06:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 4.5 - 5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
nnd123321
A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The arguments states that a pet food company had recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that has consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. Further the argument states that after the recall, the company had tested the samples form the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in per food. And thus the argument concludes by stating that food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. After analysing this argument, we can say for sure that the author assumes few of the cases and ignores few which can prove this argument to be unwarranted. The stated or unstated assumptions made by the author are as below.
The author states that that a company recalls 4 million pounds of pet food in response to the complaints that the pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. After through testing of the recalled pet food, the company concluded that the chemicals used are approved for pet food, but few assumptions are made by the company here. First that the 4 million pounds of pet food that they had recalled will fairly represent for all the food distributed, through out the company's reach. Second assumption made by the company is that the chemicals although approved for pet food are in within the limits of use, i.e. the chemicals aren't overused. The third assumption that is made is that, even if the chemicals are approved for dog food and and they are well within their limits, there is no chemical reaction between two or more of the chemicals which might alter the quality of the food. The company further assumes that the food that is shipped is stored in appropriate condition, cold or warm, dry or moist, as per the product is suited. The company also assumes that there is no problem with the packaging of the product and the product is properly sealed with appropriate amount of preservatives in them.
Even if the company had meticulously followed the appropriate standard mentioned in the aforementioned points, the company fails to assumes that there might not be any problem with their product per se but, few of the animals might be allergic to one or many of the ingredients present in their product. The argument is concluded by stating that company does not fell responsible for the recent happenings and should not devote further resources to the investigation. I my opinion this is the most stupid thing a company might do if they want to grow. Even if recent complaints registered are not directly because of the food product, one things might be for certain that these signs of illness is some how connected with the pet food that the company is manufacturing. The most efficient way of publicity is through word of mouth. If the customer fells that these recent developments is because of the product the company is making the company should do more to investigate in the matter even if the customer is proved to be wrong. If the problem is not dealt with, of course there might not be any legal complication if the company follows the standards but the company will start loosing customers as many of the customers will try to protect their pets from getting sick by the company's pet food.
In conclusion, as there is not enough conclusive evidence nor their is proper statistical data stating what kind of pet is being affected and any peculiarities associated with it, the company should not just close the case and act like nothing has happened. There should be through investigation in that matter even if the resources are invested (yes i will say invested as the company is not waisting any resources rather investing in making its product more suited for all kinds of pets), it will come out to become an asset. All in all the argument depends solely upon the assumptions state above and the argument might become unwarranted if any of the above statement comes out to be true.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
__________
The arguments states that a pet food company had recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that has consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. Further the argument states that after the recall, the company had tested the samples form the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in per food. And thus the argument concludes by stating that food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. After analysing this argument, we can say for sure that the author assumes few of the cases and ignores few which can prove this argument to be unwarranted. The stated or unstated assumptions made by the author are as below.
The author states that that a company recalls 4 million pounds of pet food in response to the complaints that the pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. After through testing of the recalled pet food, the company concluded that the chemicals used are approved for pet food, but few assumptions are made by the company here. First that the 4 million pounds of pet food that they had recalled will fairly represent for all the food distributed, through out the company's reach. Second assumption made by the company is that the chemicals although approved for pet food are in within the limits of use, i.e. the chemicals aren't overused. The third assumption that is made is that, even if the chemicals are approved for dog food and and they are well within their limits, there is no chemical reaction between two or more of the chemicals which might alter the quality of the food. The company further assumes that the food that is shipped is stored in appropriate condition, cold or warm, dry or moist, as per the product is suited. The company also assumes that there is no problem with the packaging of the product and the product is properly sealed with appropriate amount of preservatives in them.
Even if the company had meticulously followed the appropriate standard mentioned in the aforementioned points, the company fails to assumes that there might not be any problem with their product per se but, few of the animals might be allergic to one or many of the ingredients present in their product. The argument is concluded by stating that company does not fell responsible for the recent happenings and should not devote further resources to the investigation. I my opinion this is the most stupid thing a company might do if they want to grow. Even if recent complaints registered are not directly because of the food product, one things might be for certain that these signs of illness is some how connected with the pet food that the company is manufacturing. The most efficient way of publicity is through word of mouth. If the customer fells that these recent developments is because of the product the company is making the company should do more to investigate in the matter even if the customer is proved to be wrong. If the problem is not dealt with, of course there might not be any legal complication if the company follows the standards but the company will start loosing customers as many of the customers will try to protect their pets from getting sick by the company's pet food.
In conclusion, as there is not enough conclusive evidence nor their is proper statistical data stating what kind of pet is being affected and any peculiarities associated with it, the company should not just close the case and act like nothing has happened. There should be through investigation in that matter even if the resources are invested (yes i will say invested as the company is not waisting any resources rather investing in making its product more suited for all kinds of pets), it will come out to become an asset. All in all the argument depends solely upon the assumptions state above and the argument might become unwarranted if any of the above statement comes out to be true.
Moderators:
