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 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.
Updated on: 03 May 2019, 15:37
Originally posted by karlinkeiser on 02 May 2019, 16:06.
Last edited by karlinkeiser on 03 May 2019, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by karlinkeiser on 03 May 2019, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is my first timed ( 30 min) practice essay. Please score me using GMAT 0-6 grading scale and any advice on how I can improve, would be great!
Argument:
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 . . . etc.
Essay:
The argument stated by Olympic Foods is the cost of processing will decrease over time as the organization learns how to do things better, they become more efficient. There are several flaws in this argument that make it invalid.
The first flaw in this argument is in the comparison between color film processing and processing of food. It is extremely difficult to compare these as they are two different industries. This is like comparing apples to oranges, it is just not a valid comparison. There are many factors that are different about these two processes and they make them impossible to compare. Just because the cost of a 3- by -5-inch print fell from 50 cents to 20 cents and went from a five day process to a one day process from 1970 to 1980, the same can not be automatically expected of Olympic Foods
The second flaw in this argument is it does not take into consideration the change in technology. One could say that the technology Olympic Foods used in it’s first day of production is now out dated compared to the technology they now use in their factories 25 years later. As technology becomes more advanced it increases efficacy and reduces production costs. However, this information is not provided to us. We are not able to compare the production process from the beginning to the production process that is currently being used during production. Improved efficiency and decreased production costs can be attributed to new advanced technologies, but Olympic Foods does not mention technology being a factor in organizations learning how to do this better and be more efficient.
The third flaw in this argument is it does not give any statistics or data we can use to compare. If we decrease our production costs but lower our price and still receive the same amount of profit, it is a null and void point. Likewise, we don’t have any data on production cost and profits in the beginning to compare to current production costs and profits. It would also be useful to be able to compare how many workers and factories are involved now compared to when they first began operations.
Over all the argument made my Olympic Foods does not provide enough details, data, and information to be a sufficient claim. While it is likely that the longer a company is in operation, they learn what works and what does not work and they learn ways of reducing cost of production over time, Olympic Foods argument can not be supported based off of the information they have provided us.
Argument:
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 . . . etc.
Essay:
The argument stated by Olympic Foods is the cost of processing will decrease over time as the organization learns how to do things better, they become more efficient. There are several flaws in this argument that make it invalid.
The first flaw in this argument is in the comparison between color film processing and processing of food. It is extremely difficult to compare these as they are two different industries. This is like comparing apples to oranges, it is just not a valid comparison. There are many factors that are different about these two processes and they make them impossible to compare. Just because the cost of a 3- by -5-inch print fell from 50 cents to 20 cents and went from a five day process to a one day process from 1970 to 1980, the same can not be automatically expected of Olympic Foods
The second flaw in this argument is it does not take into consideration the change in technology. One could say that the technology Olympic Foods used in it’s first day of production is now out dated compared to the technology they now use in their factories 25 years later. As technology becomes more advanced it increases efficacy and reduces production costs. However, this information is not provided to us. We are not able to compare the production process from the beginning to the production process that is currently being used during production. Improved efficiency and decreased production costs can be attributed to new advanced technologies, but Olympic Foods does not mention technology being a factor in organizations learning how to do this better and be more efficient.
The third flaw in this argument is it does not give any statistics or data we can use to compare. If we decrease our production costs but lower our price and still receive the same amount of profit, it is a null and void point. Likewise, we don’t have any data on production cost and profits in the beginning to compare to current production costs and profits. It would also be useful to be able to compare how many workers and factories are involved now compared to when they first began operations.
Over all the argument made my Olympic Foods does not provide enough details, data, and information to be a sufficient claim. While it is likely that the longer a company is in operation, they learn what works and what does not work and they learn ways of reducing cost of production over time, Olympic Foods argument can not be supported based off of the information they have provided us.
02 May 2019, 17:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
I do not wish to sound difficult but you would need to improve your AWA. As written, this essay has both grammar and style issues. I advise you to draw inspiration from the chineseburned template. Also, make sure to make fewer grammar errors. This essay will fetch you a score less than 5.
03 May 2019, 14:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
DisciplinedPrep
Thank you for the feed back! Writing is something I struggle with, clearly. Could you give me some feed back on this essay. I used the Chineseburned template on this one but I ran out of time before I could finish checking for errors.
The following appeared in the opinion section of a national newsmagazine:
“To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that the government should increase the price of postage. By increasing the price of the postage stamp they will generate a greater revenue and reduce the volume of mail, which would also eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved morale. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could 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 argument readily assumes that increasing the price of the postal stamp will generate a larger revenue. This statement is a stretch because there is no information on the current amount of postal service customer, the current price of the postal stamp and what the current revenue of the post office. For example, if we knew the current price of stamps to be $1.00 and we increase the price of stamps to $2.00. You would have higher revenue per stamp. However, if increasing the price of the stamp causes you to lose customers, despite the fact you make more money per stamp, you may not create more revenue. You could potentially drive away all of your customers and make less revenue. Clearly, the argument is not a valid as we have no data to compare how increasing the price of postage would affect the revenues of the postal services.
Second, the argument claims that increasing the price of the postage stamp you would reduce the volume of mail, which in turn, would eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved moral. This is again a very week and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate correlation between the price of the postage stamp and how that will reduce the volume of mail, eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved moral. To illustrate, the strain on the existing system and poor moral could be caused by poor work conditions and outdated technology. The volume of the mail may not be a factor at all and by reducing the volume, there is no guarantee it would eliminate strain on the system or contribute to higher moral. In fact, it is not at all clear if decreasing the volume of mail would contribute to improving the system and moral. If the argument had provided evidence that reducing the volume of the mail would help fix the strain on the current system and contributing to higher moral, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all of the relevant facts about the current price of postage, the number of customers the postal services serve and the volume of the mail. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, we can not assume that increasing the price of the postage stamp would increase revenue and reduce the volume of mail, which would eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved moral. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
