|
|
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.
17 Jan 2023, 19:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument states that because the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing due to poor planning in purchasing metals, the company should move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department. Stated in this way the argument fails to take into account a few key factors such as …. which could call the conclusion into question. It rests on some assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence stated. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and falls apart at the seams.
Firstly, one needs to understand that one can’t come to a vague conclusion about the falling revenue on mere coincidence of delays in manufacturing. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There could be lot of reasons for the downfall of the revenues. For example, the newly appointed CEO have brought new policies on how the metal parts are manufactured and it gets sale. This whole process takes time for adaption and resulted in falling of revenues. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned what all factors contributed for the fall in revenue.
Secondly, this is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument. For example, there might be construction of new manufacturing units which should eventually decrease the delay in manufacturing but increase the revenue, which explains the case that though manufacturing units increased the revenue has not. The argument would have sounded a lot more convincing if stated how manufacturing units are affecting the revenues. In addition, it would have been strengthened ever further if the argument provided evidence that manufacturing delays are the reasons for the downfall.
In Conclusion, the argument fails to convince of the fault assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had drawn upon examples as suggested and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.
Firstly, one needs to understand that one can’t come to a vague conclusion about the falling revenue on mere coincidence of delays in manufacturing. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There could be lot of reasons for the downfall of the revenues. For example, the newly appointed CEO have brought new policies on how the metal parts are manufactured and it gets sale. This whole process takes time for adaption and resulted in falling of revenues. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned what all factors contributed for the fall in revenue.
Secondly, this is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument. For example, there might be construction of new manufacturing units which should eventually decrease the delay in manufacturing but increase the revenue, which explains the case that though manufacturing units increased the revenue has not. The argument would have sounded a lot more convincing if stated how manufacturing units are affecting the revenues. In addition, it would have been strengthened ever further if the argument provided evidence that manufacturing delays are the reasons for the downfall.
In Conclusion, the argument fails to convince of the fault assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had drawn upon examples as suggested and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.
Moderators:
188 posts
