|
|
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.
16 Feb 2015, 11:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
"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 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
The following argument is flawed as it makes several critical assumptions without sufficient evidence. Firstly the evidence provided in regards to the color film processing was from a long time ago. Moreover, the argument implies that what applied to the color film industry would apply to Frozen food processing industry which again is baseless.
The argument assumes that just because there was a price drop in color film processing, the same would apply for food processing as well. These are 2 completely different industries. It is like comparing apple and oranges, if not worse. There were a variety of technological advances in the color film processing industry during the said period. This assumption could have made a little bit more sense had the argument provided proof of any such advances in the frozen foods industry too.
Taking a quote from the argument, “how to do things better”, the argument uses very vague language here. It assumes that just because Olympic Foods has neared its silver jubilee, the establishment has somehow magically learned to process food better without providing any evidence whatsoever for the same. On the contrary, processing food better could also mean enhancing the quality of the frozen food which could possibly lead to an increase in prices if anything.
The data that the argument provides in relation to the color film processing is from a very long time ago. The argument does not take into consideration, the change in economic climate between back then and now.
Because the argument neglects several key items , we can conclude that it is inefficient and not persuasive enough.
"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 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
The following argument is flawed as it makes several critical assumptions without sufficient evidence. Firstly the evidence provided in regards to the color film processing was from a long time ago. Moreover, the argument implies that what applied to the color film industry would apply to Frozen food processing industry which again is baseless.
The argument assumes that just because there was a price drop in color film processing, the same would apply for food processing as well. These are 2 completely different industries. It is like comparing apple and oranges, if not worse. There were a variety of technological advances in the color film processing industry during the said period. This assumption could have made a little bit more sense had the argument provided proof of any such advances in the frozen foods industry too.
Taking a quote from the argument, “how to do things better”, the argument uses very vague language here. It assumes that just because Olympic Foods has neared its silver jubilee, the establishment has somehow magically learned to process food better without providing any evidence whatsoever for the same. On the contrary, processing food better could also mean enhancing the quality of the frozen food which could possibly lead to an increase in prices if anything.
The data that the argument provides in relation to the color film processing is from a very long time ago. The argument does not take into consideration, the change in economic climate between back then and now.
Because the argument neglects several key items , we can conclude that it is inefficient and not persuasive enough.
Moderators:
188 posts
