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 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
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 1411:00 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 15
11:00 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 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.
14 Jun 2022, 02:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Response
The argument claims the as organizations become bigger, they become more efficient. It claims that since the company will complete 25 years its cost will go down and thus maximize profits. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The assumptions involved have not been clearly explained and thus the argument is inconclusive and flawed.
Firstly, the argument states that as companies become bigger, they become more efficient. This statement is a stretch. This cannot be said about all organization. The argument provides no quantitative figures about the organizations that become more efficient with time. As organisations become bigger, they could hire more people and become inefficient rather that efficient as well. Even if this were true about a couple of organizations, we are not sure if this will be the case for Organic Foods.
Secondly, the argument talks about colour film processing costs which fell between 1970 and 1984. Comparing colour film processing to food industry is dubious. What if the colour film processing costs’ fell because of technological development and not because of increased efficiency? We cannot assume that technological development will take place in food industry as well. The example provided may not be relevant and comparable to the argument, unless more concreate facts are provided.
The argument also talks about costs going down because of increased efficiency and thus increase profits. We are not given any information about revenue. The revenue could be falling and in that case profits will not rise. Also, the initial part of the argument does not mention a time frame about how long it takes for organisations to become efficient. It could be 10, 20,25,30, years. Without that information we cannot be sure that in 25 years the organization will become efficient or if it would be later on.
In conclusion the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons. More concreate assumptions will go a long way in making the argument more relevant and substantiated. The argument in its current form remains inconclusive and open to debate.
“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.
Response
The argument claims the as organizations become bigger, they become more efficient. It claims that since the company will complete 25 years its cost will go down and thus maximize profits. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The assumptions involved have not been clearly explained and thus the argument is inconclusive and flawed.
Firstly, the argument states that as companies become bigger, they become more efficient. This statement is a stretch. This cannot be said about all organization. The argument provides no quantitative figures about the organizations that become more efficient with time. As organisations become bigger, they could hire more people and become inefficient rather that efficient as well. Even if this were true about a couple of organizations, we are not sure if this will be the case for Organic Foods.
Secondly, the argument talks about colour film processing costs which fell between 1970 and 1984. Comparing colour film processing to food industry is dubious. What if the colour film processing costs’ fell because of technological development and not because of increased efficiency? We cannot assume that technological development will take place in food industry as well. The example provided may not be relevant and comparable to the argument, unless more concreate facts are provided.
The argument also talks about costs going down because of increased efficiency and thus increase profits. We are not given any information about revenue. The revenue could be falling and in that case profits will not rise. Also, the initial part of the argument does not mention a time frame about how long it takes for organisations to become efficient. It could be 10, 20,25,30, years. Without that information we cannot be sure that in 25 years the organization will become efficient or if it would be later on.
In conclusion the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons. More concreate assumptions will go a long way in making the argument more relevant and substantiated. The argument in its current form remains inconclusive and open to debate.
14 Jun 2022, 12:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
Elsa123
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.
Response
The argument claims the as organizations become bigger, they become more efficient. It claims that since the company will complete 25 years its cost will go down and thus maximize profits. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The assumptions involved have not been clearly explained and thus the argument is inconclusive and flawed.
Firstly, the argument states that as companies become bigger, they become more efficient. This statement is a stretch. This cannot be said about all organization. The argument provides no quantitative figures about the organizations that become more efficient with time. As organisations become bigger, they could hire more people and become inefficient rather that efficient as well. Even if this were true about a couple of organizations, we are not sure if this will be the case for Organic Foods.
Secondly, the argument talks about colour film processing costs which fell between 1970 and 1984. Comparing colour film processing to food industry is dubious. What if the colour film processing costs’ fell because of technological development and not because of increased efficiency? We cannot assume that technological development will take place in food industry as well. The example provided may not be relevant and comparable to the argument, unless more concreate facts are provided.
The argument also talks about costs going down because of increased efficiency and thus increase profits. We are not given any information about revenue. The revenue could be falling and in that case profits will not rise. Also, the initial part of the argument does not mention a time frame about how long it takes for organisations to become efficient. It could be 10, 20,25,30, years. Without that information we cannot be sure that in 25 years the organization will become efficient or if it would be later on.
In conclusion the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons. More concreate assumptions will go a long way in making the argument more relevant and substantiated. The argument in its current form remains inconclusive and open to debate.
“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.
Response
The argument claims the as organizations become bigger, they become more efficient. It claims that since the company will complete 25 years its cost will go down and thus maximize profits. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The assumptions involved have not been clearly explained and thus the argument is inconclusive and flawed.
Firstly, the argument states that as companies become bigger, they become more efficient. This statement is a stretch. This cannot be said about all organization. The argument provides no quantitative figures about the organizations that become more efficient with time. As organisations become bigger, they could hire more people and become inefficient rather that efficient as well. Even if this were true about a couple of organizations, we are not sure if this will be the case for Organic Foods.
Secondly, the argument talks about colour film processing costs which fell between 1970 and 1984. Comparing colour film processing to food industry is dubious. What if the colour film processing costs’ fell because of technological development and not because of increased efficiency? We cannot assume that technological development will take place in food industry as well. The example provided may not be relevant and comparable to the argument, unless more concreate facts are provided.
The argument also talks about costs going down because of increased efficiency and thus increase profits. We are not given any information about revenue. The revenue could be falling and in that case profits will not rise. Also, the initial part of the argument does not mention a time frame about how long it takes for organisations to become efficient. It could be 10, 20,25,30, years. Without that information we cannot be sure that in 25 years the organization will become efficient or if it would be later on.
In conclusion the argument is flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons. More concreate assumptions will go a long way in making the argument more relevant and substantiated. The argument in its current form remains inconclusive and open to debate.
Moderators:
