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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
amandesai17
Joined: 16 Apr 2018
Last visit: 18 Jan 2021
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 74
Schools: LBS MiM "21 (A)
07 May 2019, 02:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
Currently doing a course with EMPOWERGMAT and was hoping to have this AWA evaluated. Any help would be extremely appreciated.
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 25th 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.
The argument that “Costs of processing goes down when organizations learn to do things better” is flawed in various ways. The argument not only uses an example that is not relevant, but also uses odd terminology that make the points of the author seem rather vague.
First, the argument uses the example of the drop in cost and number of days of service of colour film processing from 50 cents to 20 cents and five-days to three-days respectively. This example may not hold true for a company that processes frozen foods as they are operating within a completely different market with different customers. What holds true for colour film processing may not hold true for frozen food processing. Also, we do not know if there was any scientific breakthrough that allowed for the prices of colour film processing to drop, or reduce the five-day service into a three-day one. Such a scientific discovery may not be possible for processing frozen foods. For example, if there was another cause that allowed colour film processing to because more efficient and allow prices to drop, this argument becomes invalid as experience wasn’t the reason for cost to go down and for efficiency to rise.
Second, the argument uses vague terminology which states that organizations learn "to do things better”. The argument does not go on to say what it defines as better. Improvement could be evaluated in a number of ways such as cost reduction, waste reduction, better marketing, improved product quality and taste and many other ways. For example, if over 30 years, if a processing company had managed to make their products taste better while retaining the same price, customers may be more inclined to choose their products over those of their competitors solely due to taste. Another processing company may look to maximize profits by lowering their costs compared to those of their competitors. Therefore, the grounds on which the arguments claims that experience will help a company to maximize profits is unclear.
The argument could be improved if its flaws were corrected. The first flaw could be corrected if research was conducted into finding similar improvements in efficiency of companies that also process frozen foods. The second flaw could be corrected by specifying exactly what the author meant by doing things better so that it becomes more readily understandable.
The argument that “Costs of processing goes down when organizations learn to do things better” in is current form is flawed and it would be advisable for the reader to not make and decisions on the basis of this argument until its flaws are corrected.
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 25th 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.
The argument that “Costs of processing goes down when organizations learn to do things better” is flawed in various ways. The argument not only uses an example that is not relevant, but also uses odd terminology that make the points of the author seem rather vague.
First, the argument uses the example of the drop in cost and number of days of service of colour film processing from 50 cents to 20 cents and five-days to three-days respectively. This example may not hold true for a company that processes frozen foods as they are operating within a completely different market with different customers. What holds true for colour film processing may not hold true for frozen food processing. Also, we do not know if there was any scientific breakthrough that allowed for the prices of colour film processing to drop, or reduce the five-day service into a three-day one. Such a scientific discovery may not be possible for processing frozen foods. For example, if there was another cause that allowed colour film processing to because more efficient and allow prices to drop, this argument becomes invalid as experience wasn’t the reason for cost to go down and for efficiency to rise.
Second, the argument uses vague terminology which states that organizations learn "to do things better”. The argument does not go on to say what it defines as better. Improvement could be evaluated in a number of ways such as cost reduction, waste reduction, better marketing, improved product quality and taste and many other ways. For example, if over 30 years, if a processing company had managed to make their products taste better while retaining the same price, customers may be more inclined to choose their products over those of their competitors solely due to taste. Another processing company may look to maximize profits by lowering their costs compared to those of their competitors. Therefore, the grounds on which the arguments claims that experience will help a company to maximize profits is unclear.
The argument could be improved if its flaws were corrected. The first flaw could be corrected if research was conducted into finding similar improvements in efficiency of companies that also process frozen foods. The second flaw could be corrected by specifying exactly what the author meant by doing things better so that it becomes more readily understandable.
The argument that “Costs of processing goes down when organizations learn to do things better” in is current form is flawed and it would be advisable for the reader to not make and decisions on the basis of this argument until its flaws are corrected.
Moderators:
188 posts
