Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2020
Posts: 253
Given Kudos: 166
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accountin
[#permalink]
26 Jul 2020, 23:28
Hello,
I wrote the GMAT PREP 6 test and found below mentioned prompt in AWA section.
I have attempted this essay and request you(anyone) to evaluate it.
This is my first AWA attempt, so any help is appreciated.
Prompt:
The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:
“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:
The author states that by checking about 10 percent of last month's purchasing invoices for error and inconsistencies, Windfall Ltd. saved almost 10000 dollars and in order to help his/her clients increase net gain, the author proposes, to advice each of clients to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. This argument reveals an example of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill defined terminology. The conclusion of argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that by checking certain number of slips and invoices for inconsistencies, the mentioned company saved a significant amount. This statement is a stretch because the author has not taken into account other activities taken by the company to check the irregularities, for example checking balance sheets, considering data of past 12 months or more. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the range of months or years, the company had taken into account while verifying the data.
Second, the argument claims that suggesting this process to other clients would help them increase their net gains. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument doesn't support any correlation between acceptability of processes between two companies or more. To illustrate an example, a company could already be following this approach or maybe it would have tried and tested it already and had found no benefits. If the argument had provided evidence that this process had worked well for a number of companies or a survey about acceptability of this process as beneficial, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument states that this recommendation would help the firm bring the account of Windfall Ltd. But it fails to consider the other criteria Windfall expects to be fulfilled for giving their account a firm or does copying the processes used by Windfall gives the firm any advantage of being recommended . Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the other factors Windfall took into account while verifying the holes in past data and the factors Windfall considers a company to fulfill to get an account or recommendation.
In order to access merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have a full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case author fails to do it, and without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open for debate.
Thanks.