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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
11 Sep 2019, 01:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
A-
The argument states that the falling revenues company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing and that these delays are largely due to poor planning in purchase of metals.
The argument further goes on to state that the delay in the purchase of metals is due to the lack of knowledge of metals by the manager of the department which handles the purchases.
The author acknowledges the fact that the manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology still goes on to recommend that a scientist handle the department of purchase and the manager be shifted to the sales department.
The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the falling revenue which coincides with delays in manufacturing is the only cause. The statement is a stretch as there could be many factors causing the manager to decide to slow down manufacturing. Maybe the market has subdued demand that’s why manufacturing has been effectively decreased to not cause a warehousing problem or to keep the market price of goods in place by balancing the demand and supply gap. The argument could have been much clearer if it had given the reason for the decline in manufacturing activity.
Secondly, the argument claims that the manufacturing problem is due to the poor planning in purchase of metals and goes on to blame the manager responsible for the procurement of raw materials. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between poor planning in the purchase or raw materials and the incapacity of the manager to deal with issues relating to general business. The argument claims that the manager has indeed an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology. Maybe the manager took this step in a planned manner to slow down production. If the argument had provided evidence of the cause of delay in procurement of metals, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument goes on to suggest to replace the manager with a scientist as head of the production as a scientist know more about the properties of metals. The argument fails to clarify the reason behind such a move. Nowhere does the argument mention that the delay in procurement of metals was due to lack of knowledge of chemical properties of metals. Nor does it take into consideration the business handling capabilities of a scientist as compared to the manager in question.
Is a decline in manufacturing the only reason for falling revenues?
Is the poor planning claimed by the author indeed poor or a tactical move to decrease the manufacturing activity?
Is knowledge of chemical property the reason behind the delay in procurement of raw materials? And if so, is it enough to put a scientist in place of the manager to handle the business dealings of production?
Without answers to these questions, the argument 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 strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts.
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
A-
The argument states that the falling revenues company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing and that these delays are largely due to poor planning in purchase of metals.
The argument further goes on to state that the delay in the purchase of metals is due to the lack of knowledge of metals by the manager of the department which handles the purchases.
The author acknowledges the fact that the manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology still goes on to recommend that a scientist handle the department of purchase and the manager be shifted to the sales department.
The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the falling revenue which coincides with delays in manufacturing is the only cause. The statement is a stretch as there could be many factors causing the manager to decide to slow down manufacturing. Maybe the market has subdued demand that’s why manufacturing has been effectively decreased to not cause a warehousing problem or to keep the market price of goods in place by balancing the demand and supply gap. The argument could have been much clearer if it had given the reason for the decline in manufacturing activity.
Secondly, the argument claims that the manufacturing problem is due to the poor planning in purchase of metals and goes on to blame the manager responsible for the procurement of raw materials. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between poor planning in the purchase or raw materials and the incapacity of the manager to deal with issues relating to general business. The argument claims that the manager has indeed an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology. Maybe the manager took this step in a planned manner to slow down production. If the argument had provided evidence of the cause of delay in procurement of metals, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument goes on to suggest to replace the manager with a scientist as head of the production as a scientist know more about the properties of metals. The argument fails to clarify the reason behind such a move. Nowhere does the argument mention that the delay in procurement of metals was due to lack of knowledge of chemical properties of metals. Nor does it take into consideration the business handling capabilities of a scientist as compared to the manager in question.
Is a decline in manufacturing the only reason for falling revenues?
Is the poor planning claimed by the author indeed poor or a tactical move to decrease the manufacturing activity?
Is knowledge of chemical property the reason behind the delay in procurement of raw materials? And if so, is it enough to put a scientist in place of the manager to handle the business dealings of production?
Without answers to these questions, the argument 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 strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts.
Moderators:
189 posts
