|
|
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.
31 May 2016, 16:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 manager of the purchasing department."
The conclusion of the report presented for discussion at the meeting that manufactures parts for heavy machinery is seriously flawed. Concluding that the company should move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist to be the manager of the purchasing department should be questioned based on the facts reported.
The first flaw in the argument is that the delays are caused by poor planning in the purchasing of metals. The purchase of metals has nothing to do with the properties of the metals themselves. Revenue is based on two important concepts: profit and cost. While a general business sense, among other skills, would qualify a manager to increase revenue, a scientist from the research division would not be an expert in business and revenue. In this case, the scientist would be an expert of metals. If the understanding of metals if a priority, to strengthen the argument, the directors should bring in someone new to be the manager of the purchasing department who has both science and business skills.
Another piece of evidence that is questionable is that the delays were caused by poor planning in purchasing metals. Other delays of manufacturing could be related to the machinery of converting the raw materials into metals. In science, properties like the cold and heat affect metal. Perhaps the machines themselves have issues of temperature, or perhaps the machines themselves are too old and need to be upgraded to handle the conversion of raw materials. Not only could the directors have someone look at the machines, but they should also check the actual manufacturing process. The purchasing manager should not be the one in question. To blame the “poor planning in purchasing metals” of the manager is an extremely weak point.
The argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The directors have failed to provide compelling reasons why the company should not move the purchasing manger to the sales department.
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 manager of the purchasing department."
The conclusion of the report presented for discussion at the meeting that manufactures parts for heavy machinery is seriously flawed. Concluding that the company should move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist to be the manager of the purchasing department should be questioned based on the facts reported.
The first flaw in the argument is that the delays are caused by poor planning in the purchasing of metals. The purchase of metals has nothing to do with the properties of the metals themselves. Revenue is based on two important concepts: profit and cost. While a general business sense, among other skills, would qualify a manager to increase revenue, a scientist from the research division would not be an expert in business and revenue. In this case, the scientist would be an expert of metals. If the understanding of metals if a priority, to strengthen the argument, the directors should bring in someone new to be the manager of the purchasing department who has both science and business skills.
Another piece of evidence that is questionable is that the delays were caused by poor planning in purchasing metals. Other delays of manufacturing could be related to the machinery of converting the raw materials into metals. In science, properties like the cold and heat affect metal. Perhaps the machines themselves have issues of temperature, or perhaps the machines themselves are too old and need to be upgraded to handle the conversion of raw materials. Not only could the directors have someone look at the machines, but they should also check the actual manufacturing process. The purchasing manager should not be the one in question. To blame the “poor planning in purchasing metals” of the manager is an extremely weak point.
The argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The directors have failed to provide compelling reasons why the company should not move the purchasing manger to the sales department.
Moderators:
188 posts
