|
|
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.
21 Apr 2021, 08:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q: Prompt: “Over time, the cost of processing go down because as organisations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In colour film processing, for example, the cost of a 3by5 inch print fell from 50 cent 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 minimise costs and thus maximise profits.”
Essay Format
The argument claims that as the organisations learn technological advances the cost of same product competes itself and thus lowers from their previous level. Stated in such a way, the argument is a generalised statement and is inconclusive of the data, supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate the facts in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could have been presented in a much simpler and improvised manner with relevant figures and examples which could support the same.
First the author states that as time passes, the cost of processing of the same product becomes more economic to their previous level. This could be much attributed to the inventions or the technological advancements. The paradox is that in the food industry the processing cost may become economical, but then the raw material cost is increasing and that needs to be lowered for effective argument analysis. For example, the cost of Dairy milk which used to be Rs 40 for 50gm in 2000 is now Rs 40 for 15gm. Eventually, if we analyse, we can see that the food processing industry and technology remains the same, but the cost of raw material ie cocoa has risen exponentially and has triggered the cost. So unless the author is specific to certain industries to which he is quoting example, the argument remains ambiguous.
Second, the argument claims that the film processing cost for a five day service fell from Rs 50 to Rs 20 per day service. This statement is again a very weak and unsupported claim except for the facts that is only justified if the volume is high, else for retail it is again painful and much costlier. It is more of a generalised statement supporting the hypothesis for a certain industry. Obsolete technology or technological advancement can help customer in getting cost effective services, but is limited to certain industries and not all of them. If the argument could have been more conclusive and coherent of the industry, it could have been wiser to put forward.
Finally, the major flaw in above argument is that there is a judgement fallacy and you cannot compare apple to every fruit. History is evident that even though the technological advancement lowered the price of processing in food industry, many companies perished due to uncontrollably soaring high prices of raw materials. So a justified analysis would help the author to present facts to readers in a much better way.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is unconvincing as it fails to compare the industry it is referring to. The author should present the nuances of the food processing industries, which the Olympic Foods is referring to. All industry run with their own set of principles. Unless the facts are clear and stated properly, it would be unwise to compare food processing industry with the colour film processing industry, and so the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to discussion.
Essay Format
The argument claims that as the organisations learn technological advances the cost of same product competes itself and thus lowers from their previous level. Stated in such a way, the argument is a generalised statement and is inconclusive of the data, supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate the facts in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could have been presented in a much simpler and improvised manner with relevant figures and examples which could support the same.
First the author states that as time passes, the cost of processing of the same product becomes more economic to their previous level. This could be much attributed to the inventions or the technological advancements. The paradox is that in the food industry the processing cost may become economical, but then the raw material cost is increasing and that needs to be lowered for effective argument analysis. For example, the cost of Dairy milk which used to be Rs 40 for 50gm in 2000 is now Rs 40 for 15gm. Eventually, if we analyse, we can see that the food processing industry and technology remains the same, but the cost of raw material ie cocoa has risen exponentially and has triggered the cost. So unless the author is specific to certain industries to which he is quoting example, the argument remains ambiguous.
Second, the argument claims that the film processing cost for a five day service fell from Rs 50 to Rs 20 per day service. This statement is again a very weak and unsupported claim except for the facts that is only justified if the volume is high, else for retail it is again painful and much costlier. It is more of a generalised statement supporting the hypothesis for a certain industry. Obsolete technology or technological advancement can help customer in getting cost effective services, but is limited to certain industries and not all of them. If the argument could have been more conclusive and coherent of the industry, it could have been wiser to put forward.
Finally, the major flaw in above argument is that there is a judgement fallacy and you cannot compare apple to every fruit. History is evident that even though the technological advancement lowered the price of processing in food industry, many companies perished due to uncontrollably soaring high prices of raw materials. So a justified analysis would help the author to present facts to readers in a much better way.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is unconvincing as it fails to compare the industry it is referring to. The author should present the nuances of the food processing industries, which the Olympic Foods is referring to. All industry run with their own set of principles. Unless the facts are clear and stated properly, it would be unwise to compare food processing industry with the colour film processing industry, and so the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to discussion.
Moderators:
188 posts
