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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
21 Dec 2017, 09:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
This is my first time trying to write an AWA essay. I have no idea how my writing would rate and how much work I need to do, so I would like your thoughts.
Also, it took me 90 minutes to finish this essay... so I would appreciate it if anyone knows a good way to practice planning my essay and writing it faster.
Thank you 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 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
Discuss how well reasoned...
The argument states that Olympic Foods can minimize its costs and thus maximize its profits because of its long experience, since generally, organizations working in processing can become more efficient after working in it for a certain length of time. However, the argument lacks some important facts and evidence in order to make this argument convincing.
First of all, the author gives a historical fact about color film processing as an example to support his/her argument that costs of processing go down over time. However, the author merely states the fact that the cost and time taken for color film processing fell in a 14 year period, and fails to give more evidence to say that this fall can be attributed to the length of the time period. The fall of cost can else be attributed, for example, to a decrease in material costs. Also, the decrease in time taken for processing can be attributed, for example, to an increase in manpower or machinery, which does not necessarily associate with the length of time the organization is working in the process, but rather the funds it has to invest in these assets. Therefore, this example of color film processing fails to support the author's main argument.
Secondly, the argument states that the principle of efficiency improvement in color film processing can also be applied to food processing. This statement is weak as it does not assure the readers that these two processes have enough similarity to justify applying the same principle to them. Readers could easily imagine that these two processes require entirely different skills, machinery, and materials to complete them. Hence readers would be skeptical to think that the same principle could apply to both of these processes unless the author elaborates on why he/she thinks so.
Finally, the author does not elaborate on how exactly organizations could become more efficient over a long period of time. The article does state that organizations "learn how to do things better", but what exactly do they learn? Also, how can the readers be assured that organizations would learn those things just because they have long experience? Are not other factors needed as well, such as process evaluations conducted constantly during the time period, or funds to implement actual measures to improve efficiency? Did Olympic Foods have these factors? Answering these questions would have strongly supported the argument and would have made it more convincing.
In conclusion, the article lacks key facts and evidence to make its argument convincing. The author needs to elaborate on the factors mentioned above to make his argument clearer and stronger. Without these factors, the article remains conspicuous and open to debate.
This is my first time trying to write an AWA essay. I have no idea how my writing would rate and how much work I need to do, so I would like your thoughts.
Also, it took me 90 minutes to finish this essay... so I would appreciate it if anyone knows a good way to practice planning my essay and writing it faster.
Thank you in advance!
TOPIC
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...
ANSWER
The argument states that Olympic Foods can minimize its costs and thus maximize its profits because of its long experience, since generally, organizations working in processing can become more efficient after working in it for a certain length of time. However, the argument lacks some important facts and evidence in order to make this argument convincing.
First of all, the author gives a historical fact about color film processing as an example to support his/her argument that costs of processing go down over time. However, the author merely states the fact that the cost and time taken for color film processing fell in a 14 year period, and fails to give more evidence to say that this fall can be attributed to the length of the time period. The fall of cost can else be attributed, for example, to a decrease in material costs. Also, the decrease in time taken for processing can be attributed, for example, to an increase in manpower or machinery, which does not necessarily associate with the length of time the organization is working in the process, but rather the funds it has to invest in these assets. Therefore, this example of color film processing fails to support the author's main argument.
Secondly, the argument states that the principle of efficiency improvement in color film processing can also be applied to food processing. This statement is weak as it does not assure the readers that these two processes have enough similarity to justify applying the same principle to them. Readers could easily imagine that these two processes require entirely different skills, machinery, and materials to complete them. Hence readers would be skeptical to think that the same principle could apply to both of these processes unless the author elaborates on why he/she thinks so.
Finally, the author does not elaborate on how exactly organizations could become more efficient over a long period of time. The article does state that organizations "learn how to do things better", but what exactly do they learn? Also, how can the readers be assured that organizations would learn those things just because they have long experience? Are not other factors needed as well, such as process evaluations conducted constantly during the time period, or funds to implement actual measures to improve efficiency? Did Olympic Foods have these factors? Answering these questions would have strongly supported the argument and would have made it more convincing.
In conclusion, the article lacks key facts and evidence to make its argument convincing. The author needs to elaborate on the factors mentioned above to make his argument clearer and stronger. Without these factors, the article remains conspicuous and open to debate.
29 Jan 2018, 10:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, I did another AWA attempt to a different question.
I would still appreciate any thoughts or feedback to either of my attempts in this thread.
This time I wrote this within 30 minutes!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned...
The text states that the Apogee Company had more profits when it had all of its operations in one location. Based on this observation, it concludes that the company should centralize its operations once again to increase profit. There are several flaws in this argument.
First of all, the statement does not have enough evidence to attribute the company's loss of profit to its decentralization of operations. Loss of profit can be attributed to several other reasons. For example, changes in the product price, production efficiency, or advertising cost all can also have an effect on the overall profit of the company. The statement needs to include more facts to convince the reader that the decrease in profit of the Apogee Company can be truly attributed to the fact that it does not have its operations in one location anymore.
Second, the positive effects that the centralization of operations has, according to the statement, can be doubted. The statement does not give any reasons as to why having operations in one location would enable better supervision of all employees. One could alternatively assume that having more small-sized offices in different locations would enable each of the location managers to look over their whole team better, resulting in better management for the company as a whole. This may result in better efficiency in operations, leading to better profits. Therefore, the statement needs more facts and evidence to clearly deny this assumption.
Third, potential negative effects of centralization are not considered in this statement. For example, closing down the company's field offices and bringing the operations together into one location may require rearrangement of some operations and systems, for which a significant amount of cost and time would be needed. In this time the company would probably produce less profit. The statement needs more evidence to support that this temporary loss of profit would be really worth the overall increase in profit that the centralization of operations would bring.
In conclusion, the statement is weak in its argument because the reasoning to which the loss of profit is due to its decentralization of operations lacks evidence, and also because it lacks analysis of both the positive and negative effects of centralization. It would convince more people if it had more facts to support its argument.
I would still appreciate any thoughts or feedback to either of my attempts in this thread.
This time I wrote this within 30 minutes!
TOPIC
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned...
ANSWER
The text states that the Apogee Company had more profits when it had all of its operations in one location. Based on this observation, it concludes that the company should centralize its operations once again to increase profit. There are several flaws in this argument.
First of all, the statement does not have enough evidence to attribute the company's loss of profit to its decentralization of operations. Loss of profit can be attributed to several other reasons. For example, changes in the product price, production efficiency, or advertising cost all can also have an effect on the overall profit of the company. The statement needs to include more facts to convince the reader that the decrease in profit of the Apogee Company can be truly attributed to the fact that it does not have its operations in one location anymore.
Second, the positive effects that the centralization of operations has, according to the statement, can be doubted. The statement does not give any reasons as to why having operations in one location would enable better supervision of all employees. One could alternatively assume that having more small-sized offices in different locations would enable each of the location managers to look over their whole team better, resulting in better management for the company as a whole. This may result in better efficiency in operations, leading to better profits. Therefore, the statement needs more facts and evidence to clearly deny this assumption.
Third, potential negative effects of centralization are not considered in this statement. For example, closing down the company's field offices and bringing the operations together into one location may require rearrangement of some operations and systems, for which a significant amount of cost and time would be needed. In this time the company would probably produce less profit. The statement needs more evidence to support that this temporary loss of profit would be really worth the overall increase in profit that the centralization of operations would bring.
In conclusion, the statement is weak in its argument because the reasoning to which the loss of profit is due to its decentralization of operations lacks evidence, and also because it lacks analysis of both the positive and negative effects of centralization. It would convince more people if it had more facts to support its argument.
Moderator:
