|
|
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.
12 Dec 2015, 02:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Post your reviews.
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become
more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day
service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And
since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Solution :
The argument states that the cost of processing is indirectly proportional to efficency, As the organizers get more efficient the costs of processing reduces. Stated in this way the argument relies on an assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak , unconvincing and has serious flaws in the line of reasoning.
First, The argument readily assumes that Efficency is the only key factor that reduces costs of production, and in a weak attempt to support it's claim the argument states an example of color film processing.
The argument is not clear how the corelation between food processing and color film processing exist.
Hence this statement is a strectch and not at all substansiated in any way. The argument could have been more clearer if the argument had taken an example of similar grounds for instance other food processing organisation.
Second, The argument claims that with long experience comes efficiency, The authors fails to mention more details to support it's claim, For instance what if the olympic foods may be 25 years old but the management and
staff may not be constant hence it is difficult to judge thier efficiency. If the mangement is new they might
not be well experience or for this matter efficient in the work, thus the argument does not take in to consideration of essential key factors that may affect the outcome in a different way.
Finally, the argument concludes that long experiance will enable olympic foods to minimise costs and thus maximise profits, From this statement again it is unclear as to how will long experience result in minimum costs and maximum profits ?
What if due to economic inflation costs of material rise up causing to increase the overall product costs ? and what if demand decreases and hence affecting the rates of profits? Hence without supporting evidence and examples one is left with the impression that the argument is not sound or persuasive.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for the abouve mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could considerably strengthened if the author mentions appropriate examples and more reliable evidence .
Comparison between color processing and food processing is awkward, and not completely reliable for instance the demand of the respective products may vary causing a direct effect on profits. Without essential information the argument will remain unsubstantiated and open to debate.
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become
more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day
service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And
since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Solution :
The argument states that the cost of processing is indirectly proportional to efficency, As the organizers get more efficient the costs of processing reduces. Stated in this way the argument relies on an assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak , unconvincing and has serious flaws in the line of reasoning.
First, The argument readily assumes that Efficency is the only key factor that reduces costs of production, and in a weak attempt to support it's claim the argument states an example of color film processing.
The argument is not clear how the corelation between food processing and color film processing exist.
Hence this statement is a strectch and not at all substansiated in any way. The argument could have been more clearer if the argument had taken an example of similar grounds for instance other food processing organisation.
Second, The argument claims that with long experience comes efficiency, The authors fails to mention more details to support it's claim, For instance what if the olympic foods may be 25 years old but the management and
staff may not be constant hence it is difficult to judge thier efficiency. If the mangement is new they might
not be well experience or for this matter efficient in the work, thus the argument does not take in to consideration of essential key factors that may affect the outcome in a different way.
Finally, the argument concludes that long experiance will enable olympic foods to minimise costs and thus maximise profits, From this statement again it is unclear as to how will long experience result in minimum costs and maximum profits ?
What if due to economic inflation costs of material rise up causing to increase the overall product costs ? and what if demand decreases and hence affecting the rates of profits? Hence without supporting evidence and examples one is left with the impression that the argument is not sound or persuasive.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for the abouve mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could considerably strengthened if the author mentions appropriate examples and more reliable evidence .
Comparison between color processing and food processing is awkward, and not completely reliable for instance the demand of the respective products may vary causing a direct effect on profits. Without essential information the argument will remain unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
