GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 23:23

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Review my AWA Essay

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Kindly rate my AWA

You may select 1 option
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Review my AWA Essay  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2017, 23:20
Argument :

"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."

Analysis:

The argument stated above is flawed. The author takes the liberty to compare a color film processing firm to a food processing firm , using illogical assumptions to support the same

Every industry has its own technicalities and challenges. The manufacturing process in a tyre plant will be different from a PET bottle plant. The author believes that manufacturing plant life is directly proportional to the increase in efficiency for every industry. He forgets to account for the fact that a film processing plant might be technologically advanced compared to a food processing plant. .The dynamics governing both industries is totally different, hence the causality does not make sense.

The author is also comparing two events which happen to be in a totally different time zones. In 1970's the number of inventions were pretty high compared to the 2000's. It could also be possible that 1970's was the time when the government funded programs for innovation in film processing , hence leading to cheaper and better quality films. Hence, the comparison fails on the premise of different time-lines also.

The argument fails to mention as to why US Foods will be able to achieve such a feat specifically. A year on year growth estimate, market share or any specific data on the efficiency would help this argument to justify the same.

The argument is not convincing on many levels, as it fails to account for the fact that it compares two different industries in different time zones.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Review my AWA Essay  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2019, 02:38
Dear GMAT club) The best site ever for GMAT prep :cool: Thanks a lot for all your resources!

Could you please rate my essay! I have 1 month left to prepare so I would like to make sure that I'm done with AWA section :) Thank you in advance!

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 that the Apogee Company should shut down its field offices and centralize its business operations in order to improve profitability is extremely flawed because it omits some important factors, other than location, that impact on profitability. The sole reason that the Company used to gain more profit before, when it was located at one place than today, when decentralized does not constitute a logical argument in favor of centralization.


Firstly, the argument falsely assumes that the profit of the Apogee Company decreased over time solely because it made a decision to reallocate some of its offices apart from the central office. It fails to consider some other important factors that might lead to the decrease in profit, for example, demand, market conditions or the price for the product might have changed. Probably in the past market conditions were more favorable for the Apogee Company to succeed, for example, the demand was high, very few or even no competitors were on the market. The situation might have changed and the abundance of newly appeared competitors, producing the same type of product made the price of it and, hence, profit to decline.

Secondly, the author erroneously consider that centralization will undoubtly lead to cutting costs, increased profitability and better control over the workers. The opposite might be the case, however. When decentralizing their branches, companies usually seek to lower the labor cost or become closer to the resources they use, or the customers they serve, thus cutting transportation and labor costs, consequently decreasing the price of the product and ultimately leading to increased profit. Therefore, the claim that centralization will certainly increase the profit of the Apogee Company is unsubstantiated.

The argument could be more sound if the author states that for Apogee Company location of its business is the most important factor in determining its profitability and the other external market conditions did not change significantly over the time when it was decentralized. It could also be strengthen by stating that Apogee Company does not seek to use any advantages of decentralization, like reduced transportation or labor costs.

In conclusion, the argument is extremely flawed and comes across as unconvincing and weak since it omitted some factors that must be addressed to conclude that Apogee Company need to centralize its business again to gain more profit. If the author would have considered other factors influencing profitability or the positive sides of decentralization, the argument would be much more convincing.


Hope to receive positive feedback!)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Review my AWA Essay   [#permalink] 17 Jan 2019, 02:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Review my AWA Essay

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne