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!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
13 Aug 2017, 06:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi
Just wrote my first AWA for the below Argument from the OG. Can you please review ans suggest improvements to me. Thanks
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 . . . etc.
My Essay:
The Argument's conclusion that moving all of Apogee's operations to one location would make it more profitable is essentially flawed. The Argument omits few fundamentally important criteria's like the timeline during which Apogee company used to operate from a single location, how much the company has grown in that time, The various geographies it caters to.
The Argument presents a very overconfident solution by the way of saying that "When the company was Operating from One location it made more profit". It Omits at what stage of the company's growth was it operating from a single location. Was this during its early years when the number of people were very less and the operations were limited to a particular geography. It could have been that since the company was small and the operating expenses were also low, the Profits used to be high. Only drawing a conclusion from one assumption is flawed to say the least.
The Argument does not mention what was the reason in the first place the company started operating from multiple locations. In most cases the operations are distributed to cater to different geographies and also to be closer to the supply Chain. Without these details it is difficult to take the Argument seriosuly.
The Argument does not mention what will be consequences if the Company closes down its operations at other locations. How the negative publicity will impact its Customers and also its Market share.
Because the Argument leaves out many of the key points, it is impossible to consider it as a sound argument. If it includes all the items discussed above instead of just drawing a simplistic conclusion, the Argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Just wrote my first AWA for the below Argument from the OG. Can you please review ans suggest improvements to me. Thanks
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 . . . etc.
My Essay:
The Argument's conclusion that moving all of Apogee's operations to one location would make it more profitable is essentially flawed. The Argument omits few fundamentally important criteria's like the timeline during which Apogee company used to operate from a single location, how much the company has grown in that time, The various geographies it caters to.
The Argument presents a very overconfident solution by the way of saying that "When the company was Operating from One location it made more profit". It Omits at what stage of the company's growth was it operating from a single location. Was this during its early years when the number of people were very less and the operations were limited to a particular geography. It could have been that since the company was small and the operating expenses were also low, the Profits used to be high. Only drawing a conclusion from one assumption is flawed to say the least.
The Argument does not mention what was the reason in the first place the company started operating from multiple locations. In most cases the operations are distributed to cater to different geographies and also to be closer to the supply Chain. Without these details it is difficult to take the Argument seriosuly.
The Argument does not mention what will be consequences if the Company closes down its operations at other locations. How the negative publicity will impact its Customers and also its Market share.
Because the Argument leaves out many of the key points, it is impossible to consider it as a sound argument. If it includes all the items discussed above instead of just drawing a simplistic conclusion, the Argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
19 Aug 2017, 12:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
I am no expert on AWA, but as I'm asking others to look at a couple of mine it's only fair that I drop my tuppence worth in. Like the man Bruce Lee said, "take what you think is useful, and ignore the rest" (slightly paraphrase...)
I wouldn't have a clue how to grade this one (I'd be keen to here what an expert think) but gut feeling tells me its in the 3-4 range. I think that there could definitely be some more text, as it seems a little short, and there are a few little nuggets that you drop in that are crying out to be developed. Some typos as well, but that's small beer.
All easy fixes in my eyes.
UnniPods
Hi
Just wrote my first AWA for the below Argument from the OG. Can you please review ans suggest improvements to me. Thanks
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 . . . etc.
My Essay:
The Argument's conclusion that moving all of Apogee's operations to one location would make it more profitable is essentially Nugatory use of the word "essentially" flawed. The Argument omits few fundamentally important criteria's criteria is the plurallike the timeline during which Apogee company used to operate from a single location, how much the company has grown in that time, and The typo various geographies it caters to.
The Argument presents a very overconfident solution by the way of saying that "When the company was Operating from One location it made more profit".Good use of evidence to support your argument It Omits typo at what stage of the company's growth was it operating from a single location. Was this during its early years when the number of people were very less was far fewer and the operations were limited to a particular geography.? It could have been that since the company was small and the operating expenses were also low, the Profits used to be high. Only drawing a conclusion from one assumption is flawed to say the least.I'd get rid of "to say the least" - too colloquial. How about "Basing a conclusion on only one assumption - an assumption which itself lacks evidence - is dangerous and in this case leads to a flawed conclusion" or similar - tough to be particularly poetic in this format!
The Argument does not mention what was the reason "what the reason was" reads better in the first place that the company started operating from multiple locations. In most cases the operations are distributed to cater to different geographies and also to be closer to the supply Chain. Without these details it is difficult to take the Argument seriosuly.Typo. There's also scope to expand and build on this a bit more - it's a good argument.
The Argument does not mention what will be consequences if the Company closes down its operations at other locations. How , such as how the negative publicity will impact its Customers and also its Market share. Again, there's scope to expand on this.
Because the Argument leaves out many of the key points, it is impossible to consider it as a sound argument. If it includes all the items discussed above instead of just drawing a simplistic conclusion, the Argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
This is the opportunity for you to clarify exactly what things you'd like to see in the argument; personally I'm content to repeat (re-phrased) some of the previous suggestions if it leads to a more powerful climax.Just wrote my first AWA for the below Argument from the OG. Can you please review ans suggest improvements to me. Thanks
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 . . . etc.
My Essay:
The Argument's conclusion that moving all of Apogee's operations to one location would make it more profitable is essentially Nugatory use of the word "essentially" flawed. The Argument omits few fundamentally important criteria's criteria is the plurallike the timeline during which Apogee company used to operate from a single location, how much the company has grown in that time, and The typo various geographies it caters to.
The Argument presents a very overconfident solution by the way of saying that "When the company was Operating from One location it made more profit".Good use of evidence to support your argument It Omits typo at what stage of the company's growth was it operating from a single location. Was this during its early years when the number of people were very less was far fewer and the operations were limited to a particular geography.? It could have been that since the company was small and the operating expenses were also low, the Profits used to be high. Only drawing a conclusion from one assumption is flawed to say the least.I'd get rid of "to say the least" - too colloquial. How about "Basing a conclusion on only one assumption - an assumption which itself lacks evidence - is dangerous and in this case leads to a flawed conclusion" or similar - tough to be particularly poetic in this format!
The Argument does not mention what was the reason "what the reason was" reads better in the first place that the company started operating from multiple locations. In most cases the operations are distributed to cater to different geographies and also to be closer to the supply Chain. Without these details it is difficult to take the Argument seriosuly.Typo. There's also scope to expand and build on this a bit more - it's a good argument.
The Argument does not mention what will be consequences if the Company closes down its operations at other locations. How , such as how the negative publicity will impact its Customers and also its Market share. Again, there's scope to expand on this.
Because the Argument leaves out many of the key points, it is impossible to consider it as a sound argument. If it includes all the items discussed above instead of just drawing a simplistic conclusion, the Argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
I wouldn't have a clue how to grade this one (I'd be keen to here what an expert think) but gut feeling tells me its in the 3-4 range. I think that there could definitely be some more text, as it seems a little short, and there are a few little nuggets that you drop in that are crying out to be developed. Some typos as well, but that's small beer.
All easy fixes in my eyes.
Moderators:
