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
07 Dec 2017, 01:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 counterexamples 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.
The argument claims that Agogee Company should close down its field offices and centralise all its operations from a single location because back when the company had all its operations in on location, it was more profitable. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention about several factors of which it could be evaluated. Here the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that if the Apogee Company closed all it field offices now and conduct all its operations from a single location, it would be more profitable, just like old times. This statement is stretched and not substantiated in any way. To start, the world has been affected by the globalisation wave in recent years. The market and economic conditions are ever-changing as well. For example, China just joined the world trade organisation a few years back. Having a humongous population of more than 1 billion, it meant that China is a potentially untapped market, with cheaper labour and huge demand for product and services. A lot of profitable companies such as Apple, decided to take advantage of this fact. By having offices and plants in China and creating jobs for the locals, it not only reduces the bureaucratic red tape but more importantly, it has ready access to the huge demand of the country. Hence in a world where change is the only constant, companies will have to analyse the global market conditions before deciding on centralisation or decentralisation. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly states that Apogee Company had done their analysis and perhaps felt that their products or services were more suited for the local market.
Second, the argument concludes that centralisation would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company maintain better supervision over its employees. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not back it up. With globalisation, there might be cheaper labour costs from developing countries than that where Agogee Company’s Headquarter resides. To attract companies to their country, the government would also build up infrastructure and provide tax incentives. All in all, these would create a very conducive and low cost environment for business to be conducted. To illustrate my point, Samsung relocated many of their manufacturing operations to Malaysia where labour is cheaper and the political climate is fairly stable. They have managed to be profitable by cutting labour costs and leverage on Malaysia’s geographical location as a distribution centre to the rest of South-East Asia. If the argument provided evidence that if Agopee Company is located in a developing country with fairly cheap labour cost, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be strengthened considerably if the author clearly mention all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of centralisation of a company, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.“Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 15 cents a pound for lemons, but today it commonly charges over a dollar a pound. In only one of these last 11 years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.”
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 counterexamples 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument claims that the price per pound of citrus fruits has increased substantially over the past twelve years, from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar per pound. The author then stated that there was only one unfavourable weather year amongst the last 11 years and asserted that citrus growers are responsible for the excessive increase and hence strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent inflating prices of citrus fruits. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which they could have evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the price that Megamart for a pound of citrus fruits is consistent throughout the rest of the country. While it is true that Megamart charges over a dollar per pound for the fruits, that does not mean other supermarkets are doing the same. There might be other supermarkets charging citrus fruits at a cheaper price. If that is true, then the claims that the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially is considerably weakened. The argument can be strengthened by citing examples that the increase in the price of pound of citrus fruit has pervaded the rest of the retailers.
Second, the argument claims that unfavourable weather is the sole and logical explanation for the increase in price per pound of citrus fruits. While unfavourable weather is one of the factors that will lead to an increase in price, it is not the only one. There are numerous other factors that could have affected the price of citrus fruits. For example, government regulation have a huge role to play in prices of such goods. If the government decides to increase the exports of citrus fruits, with a fixed supply of citrus fruits from the citrus growers, prices will definitely increase locally according to supply and demand. Besides government regulation, the author failed to take into account rising inflation costs too. With rising standards of living and labour costs throughout the years, inflation has to be factored in as one of the main reasons why costs of goods and services increase. Given that the annual inflation rate hovers around 2%, it would have been one of the factors contributing to the increase in the prices of the citrus fruits.
Finally, the argument concludes that citrus growers are responsible for the price increase is not valid due to the reasons above. In the whole supply chain of citrus fruits, from farming to distribution to selling it in MegaMart, any change in part of the chain, be it higher labour costs, supermarkets wanting to profit more could have an effect on the price of citrus fruits. Hence it is not clear at all how the author concluded the increase in price solely the citrus growers. Without supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is a biased opinion rather than backed up by substantial facts.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be reasonably strengthened if the author considered all the other factors at play here and not just that of the citrus farmers.
Thanks in advance! :D
“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 counterexamples 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.
The argument claims that Agogee Company should close down its field offices and centralise all its operations from a single location because back when the company had all its operations in on location, it was more profitable. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention about several factors of which it could be evaluated. Here the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that if the Apogee Company closed all it field offices now and conduct all its operations from a single location, it would be more profitable, just like old times. This statement is stretched and not substantiated in any way. To start, the world has been affected by the globalisation wave in recent years. The market and economic conditions are ever-changing as well. For example, China just joined the world trade organisation a few years back. Having a humongous population of more than 1 billion, it meant that China is a potentially untapped market, with cheaper labour and huge demand for product and services. A lot of profitable companies such as Apple, decided to take advantage of this fact. By having offices and plants in China and creating jobs for the locals, it not only reduces the bureaucratic red tape but more importantly, it has ready access to the huge demand of the country. Hence in a world where change is the only constant, companies will have to analyse the global market conditions before deciding on centralisation or decentralisation. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly states that Apogee Company had done their analysis and perhaps felt that their products or services were more suited for the local market.
Second, the argument concludes that centralisation would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company maintain better supervision over its employees. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not back it up. With globalisation, there might be cheaper labour costs from developing countries than that where Agogee Company’s Headquarter resides. To attract companies to their country, the government would also build up infrastructure and provide tax incentives. All in all, these would create a very conducive and low cost environment for business to be conducted. To illustrate my point, Samsung relocated many of their manufacturing operations to Malaysia where labour is cheaper and the political climate is fairly stable. They have managed to be profitable by cutting labour costs and leverage on Malaysia’s geographical location as a distribution centre to the rest of South-East Asia. If the argument provided evidence that if Agopee Company is located in a developing country with fairly cheap labour cost, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be strengthened considerably if the author clearly mention all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of centralisation of a company, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.“Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 15 cents a pound for lemons, but today it commonly charges over a dollar a pound. In only one of these last 11 years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.”
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 counterexamples 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument claims that the price per pound of citrus fruits has increased substantially over the past twelve years, from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar per pound. The author then stated that there was only one unfavourable weather year amongst the last 11 years and asserted that citrus growers are responsible for the excessive increase and hence strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent inflating prices of citrus fruits. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which they could have evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the price that Megamart for a pound of citrus fruits is consistent throughout the rest of the country. While it is true that Megamart charges over a dollar per pound for the fruits, that does not mean other supermarkets are doing the same. There might be other supermarkets charging citrus fruits at a cheaper price. If that is true, then the claims that the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially is considerably weakened. The argument can be strengthened by citing examples that the increase in the price of pound of citrus fruit has pervaded the rest of the retailers.
Second, the argument claims that unfavourable weather is the sole and logical explanation for the increase in price per pound of citrus fruits. While unfavourable weather is one of the factors that will lead to an increase in price, it is not the only one. There are numerous other factors that could have affected the price of citrus fruits. For example, government regulation have a huge role to play in prices of such goods. If the government decides to increase the exports of citrus fruits, with a fixed supply of citrus fruits from the citrus growers, prices will definitely increase locally according to supply and demand. Besides government regulation, the author failed to take into account rising inflation costs too. With rising standards of living and labour costs throughout the years, inflation has to be factored in as one of the main reasons why costs of goods and services increase. Given that the annual inflation rate hovers around 2%, it would have been one of the factors contributing to the increase in the prices of the citrus fruits.
Finally, the argument concludes that citrus growers are responsible for the price increase is not valid due to the reasons above. In the whole supply chain of citrus fruits, from farming to distribution to selling it in MegaMart, any change in part of the chain, be it higher labour costs, supermarkets wanting to profit more could have an effect on the price of citrus fruits. Hence it is not clear at all how the author concluded the increase in price solely the citrus growers. Without supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the claim is a biased opinion rather than backed up by substantial facts.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be reasonably strengthened if the author considered all the other factors at play here and not just that of the citrus farmers.
Thanks in advance! :D
Moderators:
188 posts
