|
|
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.
28 Nov 2020, 14:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, Can someone please look over my AWA essay and help grade it? I followed the template on GMAT Club and I want a friend to look over it and tell me what they think and provide any feedback! Here is the prompt and the essay:
Prompt: 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 color film processing, 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. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Essay:
The argument claims that because Olympic Foods is celebrating its 25th anniversary, it has the experience and expertise that will allow the company to minimize costs and maximize its profits similar to the printing industry. The argument fails to take into account a few key factors which undermine the validity of the argument. the argument rests on some assumptions for which there is no clear basis and are discussed in further detail below.
Firstly, the argument that the cost of print fell from 1970 to 1984 is solely attributed to the fact that organizations learned how to do things better is incorrect. This argument fails to take into consideration that maybe there were other factors that caused the cost of print to fall. What if faster and agile printing technology was introduced and manfactured between 1970 and 1984? That could be attributed to the reason that printing cost dropped. Saying that organizations improved might be the case, but it is not the only case most likely. A perfect example is color printing. Before, there was only black and white printing, and color printing was introduced many years later. Was the change in printing attributed to companies improving their processes of printing and suddenly and magically being able to print in color? Or was it that manufacturers developed color printing, which companies then bought, and as a result sold color prints.
In addition to the first argument mentioned, another flaw in this assumption is that the Food industry is the same as the printing industry. This assumption is invalid because the food industry and the printing industry are very different, like apples and…printers! Although the print industry might have been improved from 1970 to 1984 for a number of reasons, this same principle cannot be attributed to the food industry. This is a very weak claim and printers and food are two very different sectors. Moreover, the food industry contains many different parts and pieces to it. There are many subsets within the food industry, while the print industry, although might have subsets, might not have the same basis as the food industry. Therefore it is inconclusive to compare the food industry to the print industry and claim that the two are similar enough that more experience in both industries will lead to the same result, of faster and effoicnet processing, and as a result maximum costs and minimum profits.
Lastly, the argument fails to consider, that even though Olympic Foods is hitting its 25th anniversary and the company might have a lot of experience in their particular industry, How will this experience relate to changes in the market or in manufacturing? For example, if everyone that works at Olympic Foods only has experience in a specific manufacturing tool that they have been using consistently for 25 years to produce their products, what if these tools and machines break down and the company has to buy new machines? Maybe the new machines will be a completey new model, because the old one stopped being manufactured, then the employees at Olympic Foods will have no exerpeince in these new products, even though they have been working in the industry for 25 years. If this it the case, then they might have to start over or adapt, and as a result they might not maximize profits and minimize costs as they hoped to do so with their experience.
In summary, there are a number of reasons that makes this argument weak and unconvincing, upon which this essay touches on a few. Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened by comparing Olmp[yic foods industries that have similarities to the food industry and by taking into consideration that things change over time, and what worked in the 1970s and 1980s might not be the case anymore. In order to conclusively use the argument and claim that experience will result in mazimusing profits and minimizing costs, the author must consider many more facts with merit before coming to the above conclusion. Until then, the argument remains open ended and unsubstantiated.
Prompt: 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 color film processing, 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. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Essay:
The argument claims that because Olympic Foods is celebrating its 25th anniversary, it has the experience and expertise that will allow the company to minimize costs and maximize its profits similar to the printing industry. The argument fails to take into account a few key factors which undermine the validity of the argument. the argument rests on some assumptions for which there is no clear basis and are discussed in further detail below.
Firstly, the argument that the cost of print fell from 1970 to 1984 is solely attributed to the fact that organizations learned how to do things better is incorrect. This argument fails to take into consideration that maybe there were other factors that caused the cost of print to fall. What if faster and agile printing technology was introduced and manfactured between 1970 and 1984? That could be attributed to the reason that printing cost dropped. Saying that organizations improved might be the case, but it is not the only case most likely. A perfect example is color printing. Before, there was only black and white printing, and color printing was introduced many years later. Was the change in printing attributed to companies improving their processes of printing and suddenly and magically being able to print in color? Or was it that manufacturers developed color printing, which companies then bought, and as a result sold color prints.
In addition to the first argument mentioned, another flaw in this assumption is that the Food industry is the same as the printing industry. This assumption is invalid because the food industry and the printing industry are very different, like apples and…printers! Although the print industry might have been improved from 1970 to 1984 for a number of reasons, this same principle cannot be attributed to the food industry. This is a very weak claim and printers and food are two very different sectors. Moreover, the food industry contains many different parts and pieces to it. There are many subsets within the food industry, while the print industry, although might have subsets, might not have the same basis as the food industry. Therefore it is inconclusive to compare the food industry to the print industry and claim that the two are similar enough that more experience in both industries will lead to the same result, of faster and effoicnet processing, and as a result maximum costs and minimum profits.
Lastly, the argument fails to consider, that even though Olympic Foods is hitting its 25th anniversary and the company might have a lot of experience in their particular industry, How will this experience relate to changes in the market or in manufacturing? For example, if everyone that works at Olympic Foods only has experience in a specific manufacturing tool that they have been using consistently for 25 years to produce their products, what if these tools and machines break down and the company has to buy new machines? Maybe the new machines will be a completey new model, because the old one stopped being manufactured, then the employees at Olympic Foods will have no exerpeince in these new products, even though they have been working in the industry for 25 years. If this it the case, then they might have to start over or adapt, and as a result they might not maximize profits and minimize costs as they hoped to do so with their experience.
In summary, there are a number of reasons that makes this argument weak and unconvincing, upon which this essay touches on a few. Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened by comparing Olmp[yic foods industries that have similarities to the food industry and by taking into consideration that things change over time, and what worked in the 1970s and 1980s might not be the case anymore. In order to conclusively use the argument and claim that experience will result in mazimusing profits and minimizing costs, the author must consider many more facts with merit before coming to the above conclusion. Until then, the argument remains open ended and unsubstantiated.
Moderators:
188 posts
