|
|
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.
10 Nov 2020, 06:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, I was practising for the AWA section and I analysed the following argument.
"The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In the colour film, 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. 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. "
I would really appreciate it if someone took some time out to review my essay. I will put it below.
This argument states that as organizations become older, they gain substantial experience to do things better and consequently bring down costs of processing. Furthermore, the argument compares the price fluctuations of the film processing industry to those of the food industry. The claims made in the argument have no evidence supporting them and are implausible.
In this report, Olympic Foods claims that being in the market for 25 years will enable them to minimize costs and maximize profits. However, the organization fails to cite ways in which it will ensure that these profits come in. There are questions that need to be answered. For example, what measures has Olympic Foods taken to guarantee an increase in production efficiency over the last 25 years? There is also a chance that the company's cost-cutting tactics may result in an inferior product which does not sell and does not bring in profits. So the question arises now, how will Olympic Food ensure that the quality of their product remains consistent while they try to bring down the expenditure? The argument has left all of these queries unanswered.
The report also falsely compares two unrelated industries. The reduction in the cost of prints from 1970 to 1984 by no means guarantees a similar decrease in the processing cost of frozen food. Frozen food has become increasingly popular over time, and this demand may call for use of faster and better processing methods which may not come cheap. Hence, the comparison drawn in the argument makes no sense.
The author also falsely claims that the costs of processing in an organization are bound to go down as the organization becomes older and gains more experience. There is no proof that a young organization is not as knowledgeable as an old one. Also, increasing the efficiency of work does not always guarantee lower costs. An organization may substitute humans with machines to increase the production speed but may have to pay a hefty price to acquire the equipment.
Hence, this argument has left several open-ended questions that need to be answered for it to be fool-proof. It would strengthen the argument immensely to substantiate the claims made by Olympic Food with examples of their organization's solid track record of processing high-quality food at increasingly lower production costs. Unless enough data is provided to back these claims, this argument will remain flawed.
Thanks again!
"The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In the colour film, 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. 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. "
I would really appreciate it if someone took some time out to review my essay. I will put it below.
This argument states that as organizations become older, they gain substantial experience to do things better and consequently bring down costs of processing. Furthermore, the argument compares the price fluctuations of the film processing industry to those of the food industry. The claims made in the argument have no evidence supporting them and are implausible.
In this report, Olympic Foods claims that being in the market for 25 years will enable them to minimize costs and maximize profits. However, the organization fails to cite ways in which it will ensure that these profits come in. There are questions that need to be answered. For example, what measures has Olympic Foods taken to guarantee an increase in production efficiency over the last 25 years? There is also a chance that the company's cost-cutting tactics may result in an inferior product which does not sell and does not bring in profits. So the question arises now, how will Olympic Food ensure that the quality of their product remains consistent while they try to bring down the expenditure? The argument has left all of these queries unanswered.
The report also falsely compares two unrelated industries. The reduction in the cost of prints from 1970 to 1984 by no means guarantees a similar decrease in the processing cost of frozen food. Frozen food has become increasingly popular over time, and this demand may call for use of faster and better processing methods which may not come cheap. Hence, the comparison drawn in the argument makes no sense.
The author also falsely claims that the costs of processing in an organization are bound to go down as the organization becomes older and gains more experience. There is no proof that a young organization is not as knowledgeable as an old one. Also, increasing the efficiency of work does not always guarantee lower costs. An organization may substitute humans with machines to increase the production speed but may have to pay a hefty price to acquire the equipment.
Hence, this argument has left several open-ended questions that need to be answered for it to be fool-proof. It would strengthen the argument immensely to substantiate the claims made by Olympic Food with examples of their organization's solid track record of processing high-quality food at increasingly lower production costs. Unless enough data is provided to back these claims, this argument will remain flawed.
Thanks again!
Moderators:
188 posts
