Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.- Dec 14
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
22 Feb 2017, 00:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument that the above principle will work in the same manner for Olympic foods as it did for color film processing omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument.
The first statement itself does not provide enough information on the amount of time needed for the organizations to be more efficient due to a certain change introduced. It simply says that over time the change occurred but provides no information about the exact time period like the number of years, months etc. for the same. This alone does not constitute a logical argument and certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Firstly, the statement that the cost of processing goes down as a result of organizations doing things better is completely vague in the sense that it fails to describe what are these “things”. it could be anything like adopting new technology or training of employees etc. The argument gives us no details of the measures adopted. Also, the words “more efficient” do not exactly tell that how much more efficient the organizations become as compared to earlier. Secondly, the example cited of the cost of service falling from 50 to 20 cents from 1970 to 1984 does not give a clear picture of the phenomenon stated above. It does not tell about the policies that brought this change and also how well it was perceived with the customers. How is the efficiency of the organization measured on just the cost of service?
Most importantly the argument then assumes the principle applied in color processing industry to be successful the in same way for food processing industry. Clearly the two industries have no common functions whatsoever and thus the argument is seriously flawed. Also, there is no relation between Olympic foods celebrating its 25th birthday and that their long experience will help to generate profits.
It simply assumes that if an organization has a long experience it will be able to apply the above principle in the right way and thus minimize costs and generate profits.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound and persuasive. If it included the points discussed above instead of solely giving conclusions based on assumptions, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
The first statement itself does not provide enough information on the amount of time needed for the organizations to be more efficient due to a certain change introduced. It simply says that over time the change occurred but provides no information about the exact time period like the number of years, months etc. for the same. This alone does not constitute a logical argument and certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Firstly, the statement that the cost of processing goes down as a result of organizations doing things better is completely vague in the sense that it fails to describe what are these “things”. it could be anything like adopting new technology or training of employees etc. The argument gives us no details of the measures adopted. Also, the words “more efficient” do not exactly tell that how much more efficient the organizations become as compared to earlier. Secondly, the example cited of the cost of service falling from 50 to 20 cents from 1970 to 1984 does not give a clear picture of the phenomenon stated above. It does not tell about the policies that brought this change and also how well it was perceived with the customers. How is the efficiency of the organization measured on just the cost of service?
Most importantly the argument then assumes the principle applied in color processing industry to be successful the in same way for food processing industry. Clearly the two industries have no common functions whatsoever and thus the argument is seriously flawed. Also, there is no relation between Olympic foods celebrating its 25th birthday and that their long experience will help to generate profits.
It simply assumes that if an organization has a long experience it will be able to apply the above principle in the right way and thus minimize costs and generate profits.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound and persuasive. If it included the points discussed above instead of solely giving conclusions based on assumptions, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
23 Feb 2017, 07:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
rupaliverma
The argument that the above principle will work in the same manner for Olympic foods as it did for color film processing omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument.
The first statement itself does not provide enough information on the amount of time needed for the organizations to be more efficient due to a certain change introduced. It simply says that over time the change occurred but provides no information about the exact time period like the number of years, months etc. for the same. This alone does not constitute a logical argument and certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Firstly, the statement that the cost of processing goes down as a result of organizations doing things better is completely vague in the sense that it fails to describe what are these “things”. it could be anything like adopting new technology or training of employees etc. The argument gives us no details of the measures adopted. Also, the words “more efficient” do not exactly tell that how much more efficient the organizations become as compared to earlier. Secondly, the example cited of the cost of service falling from 50 to 20 cents from 1970 to 1984 does not give a clear picture of the phenomenon stated above. It does not tell about the policies that brought this change and also how well it was perceived with the customers. How is the efficiency of the organization measured on just the cost of service?
Most importantly the argument then assumes the principle applied in color processing industry to be successful the in same way for food processing industry. Clearly the two industries have no common functions whatsoever and thus the argument is seriously flawed. Also, there is no relation between Olympic foods celebrating its 25th birthday and that their long experience will help to generate profits.
It simply assumes that if an organization has a long experience it will be able to apply the above principle in the right way and thus minimize costs and generate profits.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound and persuasive. If it included the points discussed above instead of solely giving conclusions based on assumptions, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
The first statement itself does not provide enough information on the amount of time needed for the organizations to be more efficient due to a certain change introduced. It simply says that over time the change occurred but provides no information about the exact time period like the number of years, months etc. for the same. This alone does not constitute a logical argument and certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Firstly, the statement that the cost of processing goes down as a result of organizations doing things better is completely vague in the sense that it fails to describe what are these “things”. it could be anything like adopting new technology or training of employees etc. The argument gives us no details of the measures adopted. Also, the words “more efficient” do not exactly tell that how much more efficient the organizations become as compared to earlier. Secondly, the example cited of the cost of service falling from 50 to 20 cents from 1970 to 1984 does not give a clear picture of the phenomenon stated above. It does not tell about the policies that brought this change and also how well it was perceived with the customers. How is the efficiency of the organization measured on just the cost of service?
Most importantly the argument then assumes the principle applied in color processing industry to be successful the in same way for food processing industry. Clearly the two industries have no common functions whatsoever and thus the argument is seriously flawed. Also, there is no relation between Olympic foods celebrating its 25th birthday and that their long experience will help to generate profits.
It simply assumes that if an organization has a long experience it will be able to apply the above principle in the right way and thus minimize costs and generate profits.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound and persuasive. If it included the points discussed above instead of solely giving conclusions based on assumptions, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
here is mine,
The argument claims that the time period is inversely proportional to the cost of processing since organizations become smart to do things in an efficient manner. As a matter of example, Olympic foods is expecting minimizing cost and maximizing profits relying on its 25 years of experience in the food processing field. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and ill defined evidence. The conclusion of argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence the argument is unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that different industries share a common principle of cost reduction. For example, in the argument the author has given example of color film processing industry explaining the cost reduction over a period of 14 years in processing the color films. The author effortlessly assumes that the same principle applies to food industry. Since the modus operandi of both the industries is different, there processes or methods, equipments, capability of processing are indeed very different. Clearly, the author fails to mention a suitable example to support his/her claim. The argument could have been much clearer if the author would have mentioned an example of food industry in processing frozen foods.
Second, the argument claims that ‘over time, the costs of processing go down’ which is again a very weak claim. The author fails to mention exact time frame and states a generalized statement with no clear idea. To illustrate the claim in his/her support, the author gives the example of color film processing industry and states the fact that the cost of film processing reduced in 14 years time frame. This fact is unsuccessfully compared with Olympic foods experience of 25 years in food industry. The author also assumes the fact that the technology of frozen food processing will remain constant for more than 25 years and Olympic foods will apply the lessons learnt for next few years to maximize the profits. This seems rather the wishful thinking of author than the substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned about exact time frame for learning efficient operations for organizations, comparison among same industries and accounting for changes in technology with time. Without these information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
