Re: Journey Begins.....guide me guys
[#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 08:39
Some of my write-ups:
The argument states that Beta Company should hire significant number of Alpha's former employees to increase its competitive edge. For this the author states that the former workers would help, Beta, with valuable information of Alpha's successful methods and would also help, Beta, save costs on trainings. The author also points out that these workers would be more motivated to compete against Alpha. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and gives a view that is based on a lot of unstated assumptions. Furthermore, the evidences are not rational and based on a large number of farfetched ideas. Hence, the conclusion fails its purpose and seems unconvincing for a lot of reasons. First, the author misses to state the efficiency and knowledge of Alpha's former employees. For instance, it could be possible that the workers, who had to lose their jobs where because of their bad performance and not because of the company's policy. In addition, it’s equally possible that these workers were not able to understand Alpha’s legacy methods of production and so the company decided to let them go. Hence, it’s clear that the author should have stated the credibility of these former employees to make his or her argument more convincing. Second, the argument nowhere states the years of experience of the fifteen percent of the employees, who had to lose their jobs. On one hand, it’s possible that these employees were new to the company and so did not have enough time to get sufficient knowledge of the work process. While on the other hand, it’s equally possible that these workers belonged to the lowest part of the corporate pyramid and so were never allowed to understand the work flow. In both the cases, Beta Company would not be able to save its costs on training and on knowledge transfer. Finally, the argument banks on the motivation of the former employees of Alpha. Likewise, the author misses on the fact that these employees could be those, who frequently keep changing organizations. If so, then the motivation would not be there to compete against Alpha. It would be a general thing for the former workers to shift companies and would be a far heavier blow on Beta, which would recruit them as its trusted employees. This question remains open in the argument and so the conclusion misses out on its purpose by stating farfetched evidences with irrational assumptions. So for all the above reasons the argument fails to get its message across. Therefore, the author misses out on a number of facts, which if stated could had made the argument convincing. A lot of information, facts, evidences and statistical measures are needed to properly gauge a situation. Hence, the argument seems farfetched and unrealistic.
Some people believe that archeological treasures should remain in a country where it has been discovered. In other words, the treasures should not be exported to another country, even if the treasures can be displayed in a better way in that country. While, others believe that treasure should be exported to countries where they can be better preserved and better displayed. The issue in hand is highly controversial but on a closer look one can see that archeological treasures exported to a safer country, has a number of advantages over the other. One of the reasons is that archeological treasures must be preserved to the best extent. Future generations have equal rights to see and gain knowledge from the archeological findings as much as the present generations do. For example, if an art gallery has the most recent technologies to preserve paintings to the best extent then either the technology should be distributed across countries or the art gallery should take responsibility of preserving the archeological paintings. Hence, just to preserve a nation's heritage one should not play with the future of this archeological findings.Another reason is the importance connected to the display of the archeological findings. One may reason that these treasures could add to a nation’s tourist income, but one should not forget that spreading knowledge is what a country should aim at, rather than on its selfish needs. For instance, if a museum displays an arrow belonging to an historic generation of kings in the best possible way then it would add to the historic knowledge of that particular era. However, the major reason for exporting archeological treasures is the value it adds to the nation's heritage. For instance, if London Museum hosts an event to show off its varied collection, then it would add to the heritage of those nations to which these treasures belong to. With all varied collections at one place, on one hand it would be an historic event while on the other hand it would be a ready access for all the museum lovers. Therefore, rationally exporting one's treasure to a safer place has a lot of advantages over the other. For all the above reasons, the best way to preserve archeological treasures is to export the treasures to countries where these can be preserved to the best extent. Hence, a nation should either develop the relevant infrastructure to preserve the treasures or should export them to a safer place. Again, the display of these treasures should be an utmost priority for all nations.
Some of the people think that the secret to do business is to know something that nobody else knows. While others believe that business is not all about knowing things that others don’t know instead it’s about executing things in the best possible way. The issue as stated is very controversial. However, a close look at the issue shows that it’s not always about knowing things that others don’t know, to make a business a success. It includes a number of other factors and other trade secrets to make the business run. One of the reasons is that for a business to be a success it should have something special to offer to its customers, which no one else could offer. Now this specialty could be any service or product enhancement alone, to make an impact on the customers. For example, a company called Red Bus was a hit in its first year itself because it was able to contact local bus services and provide its customers with easy to book bus tickets through the internet. It was unique with its extent of service and friendly user interface. However, nowhere these key factors were a secret to the world. Another reason is how well an organization is able to market itself in the country of its execution. How well it can set up a cost efficient supply chain system and how cheap can its products be send to the local stores. For instance, Toyota’s lean supply chain management may have been a secret when it was first applied, but in course of time various organizations have followed the same strategy to increase their production with most efficient management. Medicine giants like Well Point have adopted the theory with huge profits. So, it’s not secrets that decide the company’s growth but the execution of its policies that form the crux. Finally the major reason is that in today’s world the most constant thing is change. If an organization sticks by its secret then it would be difficult for the organization to keep changing with changing demands of its customers. So, one can see that a trade secret may turn out to be disadvantage rather than a boon. Again, secrets are difficult to be contained with by an organization in this fast moving competitive world. So, one should have other advantages too. A business depends on a large number of factors to grow and excel. Likewise, a business is a combination of visible and not so visible factors. A secret may enhance its growth but the secret alone cannot make it successful. Also in this flat world of ours secrets are hard to maintain by and change needs to keep happening for an organization to grow.
The argument states that Mercury, a newspaper publisher, should decrease its newspaper costs to increase its circulation. The author states that Bungle, another publisher, is able to sell much more because of its lower priced newspaper. Stated in this way the argument falls weak and seems very unconvincing with its farfetched evidences, based on a large number of irrational assumptions. Not only, the conclusion fails to get its message across, but also the author misses out on crucial points. First, the author assumes that the Bungle had a higher circulation just because of its low price. For instance, it may be possible that The Bungle had a better content and more exciting news which the local masses preferred. Likewise, it’s possible that The Bungle had a better marketing program to get such high circulation. Therefore, the author misses out on stating such key issues and leaves that as assumptions for the reader, making the argument fall flat. Second, the argument states that Mercury would get more advertising space, once its circulation increases to former levels. Again, the author misses out on crucial evidence. It’s possible that Mercury was not getting much advertisement because not many advertisers were interested to advertise their products for Mercury's target customers. For instance, if Mercury aimed at the middle aged people to sell its newspapers to, then there were not so many products in the market to advertise for this particular group. Finally, the argument fails to say anything about the population of the area where the newspapers were being distributed. For instance, it’s possible that the population of the region came down substantially in the last five years and so the number of newspaper readers has decreased. Again, it’s possible that The Mercury is still the number one newspaper in the area despite the fall in the number of newspaper readers. Without answering these questions it’s impossible to analyze the argument. Therefore the author needs to relook into the argument to fill up these gaps. For the above reasons, the conclusion falls weak. Furthermore, to analyze a given situation one needs a lot more evidences and stated assumptions which the author of the argument fails to mention. If the argument could had stated some of above key points in its discussion then the argument could had turned out to be very convincing. Therefore, the argument fails to get its message across.
Most people think that to be successful results of a task are more important than the actual task itself. However, some think that the key to success is how focused one is on the task at hand rather than its outcome. The issue is very controversial but on a closer look one can say that task is more important than the outcome for many reasons. One of the reasons is that being more focused on results make people deviate from the real task in hand. Furthermore, it decreases the efficiency and so in turn the outcome of the task. For instance, a sportsman while playing a game cannot have his or her full concentration on the game, if he or she keeps thinking about the end result. In addition it makes you less responsive and less critical at crucial times. Another reason is the tension levels that built up before those real nerve breaking moments. For example, a footballer just before the final match may get so tensed about the outcome that he would not have the guts to play the game normally. Again if this syndrome worsens, he could have so much expectation attached to the game that he surely be out performed. However, one of the major reasons are that when people think more about the outcome, they may lose the heart to do the task at hand, even without giving it a try. For instance, a student seeing that a competitive entrance has a low passing student percentage may opt out of it even not giving it a try. Again social responsibility, such as serving one's parents, that does not have a material outcome should be fulfilled without considerations of material outcomes. Therefore, the view that task are more important than results seems to have a number of advantages over the consideration of just the outcome. As a result, tasks should be performed with more concentration on the work rather than on the outcome or material benefits.
The argument claims that workers have become more interested and well informed about the management issues that face their organization. Furthermore, the author gives the statistics of a recent survey as evidence to back his view. Stated in this way the claim seems to be based on farfetched assumptions with no clear evidences. Hence, the argument seems weak, unconvincing and full of loop holes. First, the stated evidence of the statistical results of the survey seems to be illogical. For instance, it could be possible that those who responded to the survey were mostly the educated and well informed lot of the workers. Furthermore, it may be possible that this group did not clearly represent all the workers but just a few. Here the argument would have been convincing if it had stated the source of the people who were surveyed and how well they represented the entire group. Secondly, the argument never states the ways in which the questionnaire was prepared. Wad the questionnaire extensive with all the questions which could have fully explained the interest of the workers in the management activities? Without answering this question the argument falls apart. In addition, it never mentions the authenticity of the survey. Also, it does not mention the roles of the benefits programs, in the life of the workers. Finally, the conclusion falls apart because it never states the geographical stretch of the survey. For example, the survey may be restricted to a city only. So again there is a controversy over the stretch of the survey. In addition, a single survey to back such an opinion seems to be far-fetched. The author should have stated additional evidences to get his message across. For all the above reasons, the argument is weak with no clear evidences to state it conclusion. Furthermore, to judge the given scenario one needs a lot of stated clear evidences and examples to give a logical view. If the above stated evidences were included in the argument, it would have strengthened the conclusion many folds. As a result, the conclusion turns out to be weak and unconvincing with a stretch of assumptions.
close
BO_GMATStudySheet.pdf [461.04 KiB] 
