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
30 Jun 2016, 08:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is my first try. When i wrote it, It was less than 200 words. When i read the post of "Guide to Perfect 6.0 AWA GMAT Score" I updated it with the template provided. Thanks in advance.
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.”
The argument claims that the experience gained overtime in food processing industry will reduce the costs of food processing and thus maximizing profits. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the author depends on an example of color film processing industry that has no relation to food processing industry, even if the cost decreased from 1970 to 1984.That isn’t enough evidence for the cost to decrease. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the similarities between the two industries.
Second, The employees working in the food processing industry may change overtime , so there won’t be enough experience for them to be more efficient as they won’t know how to do things better. If the argument had provided evidence that the employees won’t be replaced then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Third, Even if the cost of the food processing goes down, that doesn’t guarantee that the profits will increase as the cost of the materials may go up. The argument may be strengthen, if the author assures that the cost of the materials will stay constant
Finally, the employees may not have the capacity to improve the way things work, so they won’t make the processing better or less costly.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and id therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentions all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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.”
The argument claims that the experience gained overtime in food processing industry will reduce the costs of food processing and thus maximizing profits. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the author depends on an example of color film processing industry that has no relation to food processing industry, even if the cost decreased from 1970 to 1984.That isn’t enough evidence for the cost to decrease. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the similarities between the two industries.
Second, The employees working in the food processing industry may change overtime , so there won’t be enough experience for them to be more efficient as they won’t know how to do things better. If the argument had provided evidence that the employees won’t be replaced then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Third, Even if the cost of the food processing goes down, that doesn’t guarantee that the profits will increase as the cost of the materials may go up. The argument may be strengthen, if the author assures that the cost of the materials will stay constant
Finally, the employees may not have the capacity to improve the way things work, so they won’t make the processing better or less costly.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and id therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentions all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
