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!
24 Apr 2017, 12:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
“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.”
This argument is substantially flawed. The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions
Most conspicuously, the argument doesn’t provide any qualitative figure of how much the costs has gone down. To analyse the significance of any cost reduction, it is imperative to know the quantity. Here the figures provided are not comparable. The prices for five day service and a one day service for two different time periods can’t be compared to conclude that the costs have reduced over time.
Secondly the argument assumes that the cost of processing went down because of the companies experience. This is not completely accurate. There are a several reasons for the processing costs to go down. For example, if the raw-materials costs or the wage of labourers has gone down, then this can also contribute to a reduction in the processing costs. There is no evidence provided in the passage that the reduction in costs from1970 to 1984 occurred due to the companies’ better experience . Hence, it’s too far fetched to conclude that a long experience will enable the company to minimise the costs and maximise profits. Had the argument provided further details that asserts that the experience of a company directly contributes in reducing the prices then the argument would have made much more sense. For example with details such as due to experience the company learned to operate the machineries at the best suited parameters, or that due to its experience the company is able to procure raw materials at a lower cost from its suppliers, the argument could have stood on it’s own.
Further to state the relation between the cost reduction of color film processing with experience and extrapolating the same inferences to food processing is outright fallacious. The argument took the liberty of applying the same principle of color film processing to food processing without providing any support data. There is no reason to believe that food processing industry follows the same market conditions and fluctuations of that of the film processing industry.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items above , provided logical comparisons , and substantiated with accurate examples , then the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
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.”
This argument is substantially flawed. The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions
Most conspicuously, the argument doesn’t provide any qualitative figure of how much the costs has gone down. To analyse the significance of any cost reduction, it is imperative to know the quantity. Here the figures provided are not comparable. The prices for five day service and a one day service for two different time periods can’t be compared to conclude that the costs have reduced over time.
Secondly the argument assumes that the cost of processing went down because of the companies experience. This is not completely accurate. There are a several reasons for the processing costs to go down. For example, if the raw-materials costs or the wage of labourers has gone down, then this can also contribute to a reduction in the processing costs. There is no evidence provided in the passage that the reduction in costs from1970 to 1984 occurred due to the companies’ better experience . Hence, it’s too far fetched to conclude that a long experience will enable the company to minimise the costs and maximise profits. Had the argument provided further details that asserts that the experience of a company directly contributes in reducing the prices then the argument would have made much more sense. For example with details such as due to experience the company learned to operate the machineries at the best suited parameters, or that due to its experience the company is able to procure raw materials at a lower cost from its suppliers, the argument could have stood on it’s own.
Further to state the relation between the cost reduction of color film processing with experience and extrapolating the same inferences to food processing is outright fallacious. The argument took the liberty of applying the same principle of color film processing to food processing without providing any support data. There is no reason to believe that food processing industry follows the same market conditions and fluctuations of that of the film processing industry.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items above , provided logical comparisons , and substantiated with accurate examples , then the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
24 Apr 2017, 13:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Your word count is good and you make a number of convincing points here. But there’s room for improvement in wording, grammar, and organization. Some of your claims are wordy and vague, like “the argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.” In your first full paragraph, you say the argument doesn’t provide qualitative figures - I believe you mean quantitative, and the difference is rather important. It’s also a vague unclear claim as is, since the argument in fact provides plenty of quantitative support for its example of color processing. What it would need to strength it would be both quantitative and qualitative data about the food industry. The quantitative issue you do take issue with actually isn’t being fair to what the argument is trying to say. The five-day serve in 1970 was in fact the exact same service as in 1984. The point is that processing got faster AND its costs lowered. So, yes, it is comparable to say that the same service (i.e. having a 3 by 5 print made in BOTH cases) dropped in both cost and processing time. In the sentence when you say, “Hence, it’s too far fetched to conclude that a long experience will enable the company to…” it’s both grammatically and contextually unclear which company you’re referring to - companies that process film or Olympic foods in the present. Because you were just talking about the film example in this paragraph and you need to make clear, perhaps in a new paragraph, that you’re shifting to discussing the present and Olympic foods. “For example with details such as due to experience the company” is sort of wordy and awkward. And you inappropriately switch tenses halfway through the rest of that sentence.
I do like that you include something that could have strengthened the argument, and that you follow up with a specific example. I think you could add one more specific example to beef up your next paragraph, too - a reason why the food processing industry might operate differently from the film processing industry.
Your conclusion is nice and clearly written and does what a conclusion is supposed to do.
Try to save some time at the end of writing for a bit more editing. Some more minor grammatical notes: you use numerous phrases that need hyphens and you don’t use them (five-day service, far-fetched, best-suited. You have a lot of extra spaces between words and commas/extra punctuation mark. You’re missing a few commas. You mistake “it’s” for “its.” Likewise, the apostrophe after companies’ is wrong. Singular company - company’s. Also? I believe GMAT grammar prefers American English and you use British throughout (analyze, laborers, maximize….). This stuff is all pretty minor, but there’s enough of it that it might add up to a lower score on the rubric of “excellent command of grammar and style.”
I do like that you include something that could have strengthened the argument, and that you follow up with a specific example. I think you could add one more specific example to beef up your next paragraph, too - a reason why the food processing industry might operate differently from the film processing industry.
Your conclusion is nice and clearly written and does what a conclusion is supposed to do.
Try to save some time at the end of writing for a bit more editing. Some more minor grammatical notes: you use numerous phrases that need hyphens and you don’t use them (five-day service, far-fetched, best-suited. You have a lot of extra spaces between words and commas/extra punctuation mark. You’re missing a few commas. You mistake “it’s” for “its.” Likewise, the apostrophe after companies’ is wrong. Singular company - company’s. Also? I believe GMAT grammar prefers American English and you use British throughout (analyze, laborers, maximize….). This stuff is all pretty minor, but there’s enough of it that it might add up to a lower score on the rubric of “excellent command of grammar and style.”
25 Apr 2017, 14:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
abhiarpana
“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.”
This argument is substantially flawed. -- Are you planning on starting your passage by saying this? It might help to start off by saying the Argument states etc...
The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this -- get rid of from this and start with and draws think parallel - presents & draws draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions
Most conspicuously, the argument doesn’t provide any qualitative figure of how much the costs has gone down. To analyse the significance of any cost reduction, it is imperative to know the quantity. Here the figures provided are not comparable. The prices for five day service and a one day service for two different time periods can’t be compared to conclude that the costs have reduced over time.
Secondly the argument assumes that the cost of processing went down because of the companies experience. This is not completely accurate. There are a several reasons for the processing costs to go down. For example, if the raw-materials costs or the wage of labourers has gone down, then this can also contribute to a reduction in the processing costs. There is no evidence provided in the passage that the reduction in costs from1970 to 1984 occurred due to the companies’ better experience . Hence, it’s too far fetched to conclude that a long experience will enable the company to minimise the costs and maximise profits. Had the argument provided further details that asserts that the experience of a company directly contributes in reducing the prices then the argument would have made much more sense. For example with details such as due to experience the company learned to operate the machineries at the best suited parameters, or that due to its experience the company is able to procure raw materials at a lower cost from its suppliers, the argument could have stood on it’s own.
Further to state the relation between the cost reduction of color film processing with experience and extrapolating the same inferences to food processing is outright fallacious. The argument took the liberty of applying the same principle of color film processing to food processing without providing any support data. There is no reason to believe that food processing industry follows the same market conditions and fluctuations of that of the film processing industry.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items above , provided logical comparisons , and substantiated with accurate examples , then the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
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.”
This argument is substantially flawed. -- Are you planning on starting your passage by saying this? It might help to start off by saying the Argument states etc...
The argument presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support, and from this -- get rid of from this and start with and draws think parallel - presents & draws draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions
Most conspicuously, the argument doesn’t provide any qualitative figure of how much the costs has gone down. To analyse the significance of any cost reduction, it is imperative to know the quantity. Here the figures provided are not comparable. The prices for five day service and a one day service for two different time periods can’t be compared to conclude that the costs have reduced over time.
Secondly the argument assumes that the cost of processing went down because of the companies experience. This is not completely accurate. There are a several reasons for the processing costs to go down. For example, if the raw-materials costs or the wage of labourers has gone down, then this can also contribute to a reduction in the processing costs. There is no evidence provided in the passage that the reduction in costs from1970 to 1984 occurred due to the companies’ better experience . Hence, it’s too far fetched to conclude that a long experience will enable the company to minimise the costs and maximise profits. Had the argument provided further details that asserts that the experience of a company directly contributes in reducing the prices then the argument would have made much more sense. For example with details such as due to experience the company learned to operate the machineries at the best suited parameters, or that due to its experience the company is able to procure raw materials at a lower cost from its suppliers, the argument could have stood on it’s own.
Further to state the relation between the cost reduction of color film processing with experience and extrapolating the same inferences to food processing is outright fallacious. The argument took the liberty of applying the same principle of color film processing to food processing without providing any support data. There is no reason to believe that food processing industry follows the same market conditions and fluctuations of that of the film processing industry.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items above , provided logical comparisons , and substantiated with accurate examples , then the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
I'd say that your response is dense. Good writing skills but poor organization which leads to almost no logical flow. You need to simplify each point, and make a logical jump from one point to another. Currently it sounds like one convoluted thought.... the reader has to be able to understand the thought process.
I like the reasoning, you provide some good arguments but you gotta spend 5 minutes at the end to organize your thoughts so the reader can understand the passage in one reading.
Kudos if it helps!
