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
aishikdhar2006
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Last visit: 21 Nov 2020
Posts: 22
Given Kudos: 6
Location: India
Schools: Instead Sept 20 Intake (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V39
19 May 2019, 02:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of research and development at Ready-to-Ware, a software engineering firm.
The package of benefits and incentives that Ready-to-Ware offers to professional staff is too costly. Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation. Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. To become more profitable again, Ready-to-Ware should, therefore, offer the reduced benefits package that was in place two years ago and use the savings to fund our current research and development initiatives.
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 director argues that benefits and incentives formulated two years ago for its employees at Ready-to-Ware have had negative impact on the profits of the company. The argument further claims that the package has not been able to attract high-quality professional staff and hence had only marginal success in this area. He concludes that the company should do away with such a costly initiative and instead focus the savings on research to make the company profitable again. Though at the beginning, the argument seems logical, deeper analysis reveals ill defined reasons which weaken the argument.
First, the argument states that the package was introduced at the time of incorporation of the company and the company has been seen profits decline ever since. The argument readily attributes this to the package. Clearly, the causal relation is flawed since there is a strong probability that the fundamental business model is flawed or the strategy in place at the company is wrong. It might also be true that the industry in which the company is present is doing poorly as a whole. On the contrary, the package might be helping the company getting more out of its motivated workforce, thus reducing the loss.
Second, the argument asserts that the quality of recruitment is poor at the company and states that the package is a failure because of this. One needs to understand that the package alone cannot attract the best talent in the market. What if the working culture at the company is the worst in the industry? What if the industry itself is suffering from a dearth of quality professionals? What if there are numerous big brands in the city in which Ready-to-Ware is based? What if other companies offer more package than this company? Without this key evidence, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of the argument. Till then the argument is more of wishful thinking.
Third, we are told that investment in research and development initiatives is the best investment of the savings made due to reduced benefits package. The argument does not take into account the current state of the products that the company offers. If the products that it offers is already the best in the market and way ahead of its competitors, then this area is certainly not where the company needs to invest. Maybe the operations and delivery is where the company lags behind or maybe there are not enough clients who know about the company because of lack of marketing. Hence, such conclusion is dubious.
In conclusion, there are a lot of factors which need to be put forward for us to be able to make a sound conclusion. The argument needs to tell us about the industry scenario, it needs to analyze the competitors in the market, and it needs to look at the benefits package and its actual impact more in depth. Till then though, the argument stands on ill-defined reasons and weak premise and is open to debate.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of research and development at Ready-to-Ware, a software engineering firm.
The package of benefits and incentives that Ready-to-Ware offers to professional staff is too costly. Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation. Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. To become more profitable again, Ready-to-Ware should, therefore, offer the reduced benefits package that was in place two years ago and use the savings to fund our current research and development initiatives.
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 director argues that benefits and incentives formulated two years ago for its employees at Ready-to-Ware have had negative impact on the profits of the company. The argument further claims that the package has not been able to attract high-quality professional staff and hence had only marginal success in this area. He concludes that the company should do away with such a costly initiative and instead focus the savings on research to make the company profitable again. Though at the beginning, the argument seems logical, deeper analysis reveals ill defined reasons which weaken the argument.
First, the argument states that the package was introduced at the time of incorporation of the company and the company has been seen profits decline ever since. The argument readily attributes this to the package. Clearly, the causal relation is flawed since there is a strong probability that the fundamental business model is flawed or the strategy in place at the company is wrong. It might also be true that the industry in which the company is present is doing poorly as a whole. On the contrary, the package might be helping the company getting more out of its motivated workforce, thus reducing the loss.
Second, the argument asserts that the quality of recruitment is poor at the company and states that the package is a failure because of this. One needs to understand that the package alone cannot attract the best talent in the market. What if the working culture at the company is the worst in the industry? What if the industry itself is suffering from a dearth of quality professionals? What if there are numerous big brands in the city in which Ready-to-Ware is based? What if other companies offer more package than this company? Without this key evidence, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of the argument. Till then the argument is more of wishful thinking.
Third, we are told that investment in research and development initiatives is the best investment of the savings made due to reduced benefits package. The argument does not take into account the current state of the products that the company offers. If the products that it offers is already the best in the market and way ahead of its competitors, then this area is certainly not where the company needs to invest. Maybe the operations and delivery is where the company lags behind or maybe there are not enough clients who know about the company because of lack of marketing. Hence, such conclusion is dubious.
In conclusion, there are a lot of factors which need to be put forward for us to be able to make a sound conclusion. The argument needs to tell us about the industry scenario, it needs to analyze the competitors in the market, and it needs to look at the benefits package and its actual impact more in depth. Till then though, the argument stands on ill-defined reasons and weak premise and is open to debate.
Moderators:
189 posts
