Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/6
The essay is generally coherent and well-connected. The author uses transition words and phrases to smoothly link the different parts of the argument together. However, in some instances, the essay jumps abruptly from one idea to another, which could make it harder for readers to follow the argument.
Anatomy: 6/6
The essay follows a clear and concise structure with an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a single idea and supports it with evidence and reasoning.
Paragraph structure and formation: 6/6
Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that sets out the main idea and is followed by supporting sentences that provide evidence and reasoning. The author also uses examples to illustrate the main points.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay is well-written and mostly free of grammatical errors. The author uses a variety of sentence structures and employs appropriate verb tenses. However, there are a few instances where the sentence structure is awkward or unclear, which could make it harder for readers to understand the argument.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5/6
The author uses a wide range of vocabulary to express ideas clearly and concisely. However, there are a few instances where the word choice is imprecise or unclear, which could make it harder for readers to follow the argument.
Overall, the essay is well-structured and presents a clear argument. The author supports their points with evidence and reasoning, and the writing is mostly free of errors. However, there are a few areas where the essay could be improved, such as providing more evidence to support the main points and using clearer language in some instances.
JadKhairallah wrote:
Question:
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer:
The argument claims that over time, the costs of processing go down because organizations learn how to do things better and in a more efficient way. The author proceeds by giving an example for the previous statement and seems to be convinced that Olympic Foods' long experience will enable it to minimize costs and maximize profits. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that generally, costs of processing go down because organizations learn how to do things better and in a more efficient way. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. For example, costs may have hit the minimum level and cannot be further reduced, even if the company is working at its most efficient level. The argument could have been much clearer if it had provided evidence or data to support this statement and would therefore be much more convincing.
Second, the argument readily assumes that food processing and color film processing can be compared. This statement is again a very weak and unconvincing statement since the author doesn't clearly explain the correlation between the cost reduction of food processing and that of color film processing. To illustrate, the argument assumes a decrease in the cost of a 3-by-5 print, when in fact, there was a significant increase of 100% on a per day basis. If the argument had provided proof that food processing can indeed be compared to color film processing, it would have been much more clear and substantiated.
Finally, the argument seems to address a causal relationship between the celebration of the twenty-fifth birthday of olympic foods and the experience gained. It claims that this experience will enable the company to minimize costs and maximize profits. However, the arguments fails to account for a lot of other variables that come into play in order to achieve this goal. What if the current experience of the company isn't enough to be able to lower cost? Additionally, what if a new competitor emerged in the industry and Olympic Foods wasn't able to compete with it? Or what if a worldwide recession is imminent? Then can we really be sure that just by relying its experience, the company can can maximize its profits and reduce its costs? Without any convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than credible evidence.
To conclude, the argument is seriously flawed and erroneous for the above mentioned reasons. It would have been significantly strengthened if it had provided all the necessary information. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is imperative to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.