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
minustark
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Last visit: 01 Apr 2021
Posts: 469
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Status:Student
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
Schools: Zicklin Baruch "22
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V35
GPA: 3.9
WE:Education (Accounting)
Products:
08 Jun 2020, 18:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
In recent years, Braeburn Corporation has seen lagging sales of its food products. Just a few of the many food products Braeburn sells are soy products. Soy products have been shown to reduce rates of cancer. Because people care about reducing their risk of cancer, Braeburn should increase manufacturing of soy products. This will help Braeburn Corporation improve sales and increase profits.
My attempt:
In this argument the author recommends that Braeburn should increase manufacturing of soy products in order to improve sales and maximize profits. Two reasons are cited as the basis of this suggestion. One of them is the fact that soy products have been shown to reduce rates of cancer. Another one is as people care about reducing their risk of cancer, Braeburn can boost its sales of soy products. On the face of it, the argument seems promising, but several underlying assumptions deserve attention.
In the first place, the argument readily assumes that peoples’ concern about how to reduce the risk of cancer would serve as a potential business opportunity for Braeburn to introduce a new soy product in the market without any interruption from competitors. This ambitious assumption, however, requires careful observation as the sales and profitability depend on a complex model aside from the reasons offered here, the concern of general people. Moreover, the excerpt mentions lagging sales of Braeburn food products in recent years; a matter that can gravely influence the future projects by Braeburn. Clearly, without strong evidence of why consumers would prefer Braeburn products over other soy products available in the market, this statement is a stretch.
Another major implication endorsed in this argument is that soy products have enough name recognition as cancer reducing agent to convince customers select food products containing soy. Yet, the argument fails to mention any considerable and relevant studies or scientific reports to support this statement. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that a variety of healthy food products other than soy, a balanced diet, and physical exercise help to keep risk of cancer under control. Consequently, depending on just soy products to attract consumers may not be a prudent business decision made by Braeburn.
In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, the argument suffers from another problem of not expressing any doubt toward Braeburn’s ability to launch a new product in the market. General observation indicates that it is wise for businesses to attempt to recover from ongoing sloppy sales before beginning another new project. The argument ignored the wise saying ‘the bird in the hand always worth two in the bush’, and suggested a highly risky way for Braeburn to improve sales and profitability margin.
In conclusion, stated in the way, the argument manipulates facts by conveying a distorted view of reality and fails to mention several key factors. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate a positive relation between public’s concern about reducing risk of cancer and potential business gains. Additionally, the author has to establish Braeburn’s potential to introduce new soy products without hampering its current business position. Without substantiating all the key factors, the argument will remain a wishful thinking and open to debate.
My attempt:
In this argument the author recommends that Braeburn should increase manufacturing of soy products in order to improve sales and maximize profits. Two reasons are cited as the basis of this suggestion. One of them is the fact that soy products have been shown to reduce rates of cancer. Another one is as people care about reducing their risk of cancer, Braeburn can boost its sales of soy products. On the face of it, the argument seems promising, but several underlying assumptions deserve attention.
In the first place, the argument readily assumes that peoples’ concern about how to reduce the risk of cancer would serve as a potential business opportunity for Braeburn to introduce a new soy product in the market without any interruption from competitors. This ambitious assumption, however, requires careful observation as the sales and profitability depend on a complex model aside from the reasons offered here, the concern of general people. Moreover, the excerpt mentions lagging sales of Braeburn food products in recent years; a matter that can gravely influence the future projects by Braeburn. Clearly, without strong evidence of why consumers would prefer Braeburn products over other soy products available in the market, this statement is a stretch.
Another major implication endorsed in this argument is that soy products have enough name recognition as cancer reducing agent to convince customers select food products containing soy. Yet, the argument fails to mention any considerable and relevant studies or scientific reports to support this statement. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that a variety of healthy food products other than soy, a balanced diet, and physical exercise help to keep risk of cancer under control. Consequently, depending on just soy products to attract consumers may not be a prudent business decision made by Braeburn.
In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, the argument suffers from another problem of not expressing any doubt toward Braeburn’s ability to launch a new product in the market. General observation indicates that it is wise for businesses to attempt to recover from ongoing sloppy sales before beginning another new project. The argument ignored the wise saying ‘the bird in the hand always worth two in the bush’, and suggested a highly risky way for Braeburn to improve sales and profitability margin.
In conclusion, stated in the way, the argument manipulates facts by conveying a distorted view of reality and fails to mention several key factors. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate a positive relation between public’s concern about reducing risk of cancer and potential business gains. Additionally, the author has to establish Braeburn’s potential to introduce new soy products without hampering its current business position. Without substantiating all the key factors, the argument will remain a wishful thinking and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
