We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accountin

Good Luck

Hi Sajjad1994 and team, could you please evaluate this?

The argument in the memorandum claims that Windfall's accounting department saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments by checking about 10 percent of the last month's purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies. In order to increase the client's net gains, the company advised instituting a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. The recommendation could help the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of the methods, Stated in this way, the argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts by presenting a distorted view of reality, and is a leap of faith of reasoning without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could be improved if it is supported with relevance on which the argument core assumption depends.

Firstly, the argument claims that Windfall's accounting department saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments by checking about 10 percent of the last month's purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies. The argument is flawed as the argument does not mention the trustworthiness of the company's account department. For example, the accounting department could have incorrectly calculated the overpayments. Furthermore, the account department could have taken more than 10 percent of last month invoices or the department considered those sets of invoices that have more errors and inconsistencies.

Secondly, the argument claims that in order to help clients and increase their net gains, the company should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument incorrectly assumes that instituting a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors would help clients to increase their net gains. To illustrate, what if the company incorrectly calculated the errors and consistencies for 10 percent of the invoices and checking all invoices would waste the man power and time in the first place. Also, the argument does not confirm whether there are alternatives to figure out the inconsistent invoices rather than checking all the invoices.

Lastly, the argument claims that the above recommendation could help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods. The argument is flawed as it does not consider the parameters which may apply only to Windfall and not to the financial and consulting firm. Also, the management and financial consulting firm fails to consider the way to purchase error-free and consistent invoices.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and there not convincing. In order to assess the merits of the argument, it is necessary to have complete knowledge of the contributing factors. In this particular case, without the proper understanding, one is left with an impression that the claim is more of a leap of faith than a well-reasoned inference drawn from logical reasoning. Therefore, the argument is indefensible and open to debate.

Good Luck

The following appeared in a research paper written for an introductory economics course:
“For the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits issued per month in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. If the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months, the local unemployment rate almost always falls and economic production increases. This well-established connection reveals an effective method by which a regional government can end a local economic downturn: relax regulations governing all construction so that many more building permits can be issued.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.

Essay
The author of the research paper written for an introductory economic course concluded that relaxing regulations governing all construction will lead to more building permits to be issued thus ending a local economic downturn based on the fact that for the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. The conclusion is flawed based on many unwarranted assumptions. To start with the causal relation established by the author between the increase of the building permits with the improvement of the economy, secondly, the author has provided vague information regarding the improvement of the economy and the decrease of the unemployment rates and finally, considering time doesn’t change from the past century to the present time.

To start with, the author of the research paper has established a causal relation between the increase of the building permits with the improvement of the economy ignoring the fact that many other factors could lead to that result and might have happened simultaneously with the increase of the building permits for example the discovery of a petroleum well or the discovery of a mine in that region or simply a development plan has been planned for that particular region. Had the author mentioned the direct link between the permits and the economic improvement with a study done or stating all other factors that might lead to that improvement, the assumption would have been valid. In addition, the fact that relacing the governing regulations will lead to the issuance of more building permits is flawed as the market could be saturated at the moment and people don’t want to build more buildings,
Secondly, the author has used a vague language where he missed to include any number or statistic that shows what was the economic state of that particular area, the number of permits issued and the impact of these permits on the economy for example, the economy has been improved by 60% or the unemployment rate has dropped to a new low record of 10% from 60% based on a study, then the argument would have been valid verified.
Finally, the author has assumed that time doesn’t change and what was applicable for the past century is still valid today, not taking into consideration the technological improvement that have reduced the required manpower to do a certain job, and not taking into consideration that the population growth is decreasing, and less people are willing to buy houses or to find jobs. Had the author mentioned how the same conditions still applies on today’s era, the effect of these permits is affection the unemployment rates if any is still available and if the supply and demand of the buildings is unchangeable with time, the argument would have been valid.
To conclude, the assumption of the author that a relaxation in the regulations governing all construction will lead to more building permits to be issued thus leading to an improvement in the local economic downturn is flawed and needs to be backed by more evidence and precise language for the argument to be valid.

Welcome to GMAT Club!



Where are the paragraphs? DO NOT just copy and paste.

Hello! Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance!

Prompt:

The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:

“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”

Response:

The member of the financial management and consulting firm claims that by advising clients to check all purchasing invoices for errors, the firm would help clients increase their net gains while increasing its chances of attracting Windfall as a client. This conclusion is based on the premise that, according to an employee of Windfall, Ltd., Windfall's accounting department saved $10,000 in overpayments by checking one tenth of the previous month's purchasing invoices for errors and incosistencies. This argument, as it stands, is flawed because it evaluates a strategy on the basis of one single occurence, and because it assumes that a similar, but more rigorous strategy will have an even better result.

First of all, the author of the argument assumes that the strategy of checking invoices will be beneficial because that was the case, according to a single individual, with Windfall last month. For one thing, the individual might have lied to the financial management and consulting firm or might have misinterpreted the results of the checking mechanism. Even if what the individual reported was true, the strategy of checking invoices might not have consistent results over time. For instance, the month that Windfall saved $10,000 in orverpayments might have been a hectic month for its suppliers leading to many more mistakes compared with other months. A multiple revision of the strategy with similar results would provide sounder grounds to evaluate its outcome.

Secondly, the author recommends a strategy that is not the same as the one followed by Windfall. What he proposes is checking all the invoices instead of checking a fraction of them. Even if Windfall's strategy is indeed succesful, as implied by the author, the strategy of checking all of the invoices might not be as succesful and, most importantly, as efficient. To illustrate, it might not be feasible for a client to check all of the purchasing invoices, or the cost of doing so might be unbearable.

Finally, as cost was mentioned in the end of the previous paragraph, there is no information provided about how much checking invoices for errors and incosistencies cost Windfall. It might as well be the case that the resources allocated to check just a fraction of the invoices cost more than $10,000, leading to a net loss for Windfall. If the mechanism used for checking invoices do not become more efficient when used in scale or, in other words, when used to check all invoices, the loss might be even greater. Hence, the clients might experience a loss instead of a gain from the strategy proposed.

In summary, the member of the consulting firm recommends a strategy, the results of which are not necessarily beneficial. If the strategy fails, the clients of the firm would be in loss and the consulting firm would fail in attracting Windfall. Before recommending the introduction of an invoice checking policy, the firm should test it a sufficient amount of times to draw safer conclusions regarding its feasibility and benefits for prospective clients.

Good Luck

AWA Evaluation Request

Dear Sajjad1994 , request you to please grade my AWA attempt. Thanks in advance!

Prompt :
The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:

“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”

Discuss how well reasoned ....




My response :

The argument states that the consulting firm should recommend its clients to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors and that this would help them get the Windfall account by demonstrating the rigorousness of their methods. This argument is flawed for several reason as it manipulates facts and presents a distorted view of the situation. It also fails to mention several key points on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion is based on assumptions for which there is not clear evidence. Therefore, it is not convincing.

First, the argument readily assumes that the there are always errors in invoicing. This is a stretch as every company strives to have impeccable invoicing and management of documents. For instance, if there are no errors in the invoicing, then a policy of checking for errors will only waste time and energy. In addition to this, such a policy might cause the invoicing team to be more lax and make mistakes as they are assured of the invoices being re-checked. This might lead to a greater number of mistakes. The argument fails to evaluate the possibility that there were so many mistakes in the 10% of the invoices that were checked at Windfall because it was known beforehand that these invoices will be re-checked for mistakes. Therefore, the argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the possibility of errors in invoices and the entire scenario at Windfall.

Second, the argument states that by displaying the rigorousness of their methods, Windfall will be impressed and they will be able to get their business. This is again an uncorroborated claim as the author states no correlation between the desirable qualities for Windfall to work with a consulting firm and rigourousness. This claim would be completely nullified if the most important quality for Windfall was for the consulting firm to have the most qualified and erudite employees in their team or for them to have many success stories or the kind of clients they have dealt with in the past. The argument could have been strengthened if it demonstrated that the CEO of Windfall has gone on record to say that they value the rigorousness of a consulting firm the most.

Finally, the argument concludes that advising each of their clients to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices would demonstrate rigourousness. What if it demonstrates foolishness since they did not evaluate the entire scenario that Windfall was in ? What if the number of employees at Windfall are way larger than the number of employees at the other customers of the consulting firm and they are unable to devote these resources for mere re-checking ? Wouldn't it be better if they rather demonstrated that they have more competent employees that do not make any errors while invoicing ? Without answers to these questions, the argument seems more of wishful thinking than substantive evidence. Hence the conclusion has no legs to stand on.

To summarise, the argument is seriously flawed due to the reasons mentioned above and persuades no one in its favour. If it mentioned all the assumption, the clear picture of the scenario at Windfall and the evidence for the correlations mentioned, then it would have been more convincing. In determining the merit of any argument, it is imperative to have details of all the relevant factors. In this case, ht number of employees at Winfdall, the reason behind the errors in the invoices of Windfall, the values that Windfall hunts for in a consulting firm and whether the other customers can afford to re-check all the invoices or even 10% invoices. Without answers to these questions, the argument is not compelling and open to discussion.

Good Luck

Dear Sajjad1994, good day. Can you please rate my essay?

Thank you very much!

-----------------------------
The argument claims that by instituting a policy of checking all purchasing invoices will help the clients to increase their net gains. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that by checking all the purchasing invoices will increase the net gains. This statement is a stretch since it does not demonstrate the increase of gain with evidence. To illustrate this, net gain a a function of additional gain or benefit minus the effort or expenses. The additional effort put in by employees might contribute towards higher labor cost and lower productivity. Eventually, this might not lead to a higher net gain. Clearly, the argument is not convincing. If it has demonstrated evidence of higher net gain will be obtained despite additional expenses or effort, the argument could have been much clearer.

Second, the argument claims that checking all the invoices will lead to higher saving in overpayment. This is again a weak argument as it does not correlate the relationship of checking all invoices with the higher saving. There are some situations that could undermine the claim. For example, the 10% check last month has actually focused on high probability of areas of errors and inconsistencies. Hence, the employees have put the focus to check and managed to acquire the saving. Therefore, by extending to all invoices, there could be less of savings discovered as those are areas which have low probability of errors. The additional checking will not yield the anticipated the results. The argument could have been much clearer if it has explicitly stated the clear evidence to support its claim.

Finally, there are more questions to be answered to make the argument more convincing. Is the checking of all invoices for errors commonly practiced in the industry? What is the best practices and benchmarking in this aspect? Is the company resourced to perform this additional task without jeopardizing the staffs' core tasks which are important for the profitability of the company? Without convincing answers to these questions, one will be left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. It could have considerably strengthened if it mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of the situation, it is essential to have the full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without the those information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hello, can someone rate my essay? thanks.

The argument claims that the financial management and consulting firm has learned about the errors and inconsistancies in a certain company. Then the author concludes by asserting that in order to help clients increase their net gains the consulting firm should advise each of the clients to institute a policy for checking all purchasing invoices for errors. This argument is flawed on the basis of several underlying assumptions for which no clear evidence has been provided. Some of these flaws are stated below.

First, the argument readily assumes that by checking 10 percent of last month's purchasing invoice of Windfall and reporting errors on the basis of those 10 percent will imply that there will be more errors in the remaining 90 percent. There can be various reasons for the inconsistencies and it could be possible that only due to a technical glitch last month's invoices have some error. The author has also considered a very narrow time frame, one month. In analysing data of such a short timespan to make broader decisions is not the best idea. If the author had provided more empirical data of a broader timespan then the argument would have been sounder.

Second, the author's conclusion to advise all the clients to check for errors ignores all the other constraints due to which the firms don't usually do this process. For example, if checking every invoice for errors take a large number of people and a substanital amount of time in which the company can make more net gains, then the companies will loose more money instead of gaining. If the argument had shed some light on the process and its various underlying factors the argument could have been clearer.

Third, the argument's claim about getting recommendation to get the Windfall account is unclear. No where in the argument has stated that Windfall hasn't already hired a consultancy firm, in fact it is stated that Windfall's employee has checked the company's invoices for errors. This can imply that the recommendation about Windfall hiring the author's firm could become redundant.

To conclude, this argument is based on several ambiguous assumptions which lack evidence and information to support them consistently. Hence, this argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Can someone pls review my essay?

TIA

the abovementioned author states that by checking 10 percent of the last month's purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, Windfall, Ltd., saved$10,000 in overpayments. Argument states that the consulting firm can helpits clients increase their net gains by advising them to institute a policy checking all purchasinf invoices for errors. Arguments concludes that such a recommendation can help the firm get Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the reigorousness of the firm's methods. This argument is clearly flawed. Its conclusion is based on assumptions that have no clear evidence.

First, argument assumes that currently no company already has a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. It is very possible that, a lot of companies already have instituted such a system and hence will not benefit from the firm's advise.

Second, Argument states that firm might be able to get Windfall account by demonstrating its methods to Windfall. This is a weak conclusion to draw as it is not backed by any evidence. If argument had mentioned that Windfall is only looking for a firm with rigourous methods, it would have been much clearer.

Third, Argument assumes that saving $10,000 is substantial savings. There is a possibility that the cost of instituting a policy of chekcing all purchasing invoices for errors is a lot more than the policy's returns. In such a scenario, clients will not be benefited.

Abovementioned flaws are what make this argument unsubstantiated and open to debates. The argument can be strenghtened by providing sufficient evidence about the errors found in invoices every month, the cost of setting up a policy for error checks. Because these points are missing, argument is baseless and flawed.

Good Luck

Sajjad1994 / bb

Could you please help me rate my essay on the same prompt as above?

Thanks a lot!

Essay:
The argument is based on several assumtions, and it concludes that a policy of checking all purchasing invoices would increase the net gains of the clients. This claim should be met with scepticism because the argument ignores certain flaws in reasoning such as what the cause was for the invoice errors, what was the cost of checking the 10% of invoices and how were those 10% selected.

First, if the accounting department of Windfall Ltd. makes more errors than others, then the savings of $10,000 that Windfall realized would not be realizable by other companies.Hence, instituting a policy of checking each invoice for error may not add to net gains.

Second, while the checking of invoices helped save $10,000, we do not know what was the cost for this checking. The time and costs spent to check 10% of invoices may not have been worth the savings of 10,000. Similarly, before other companies can be advised to follow a policy for checking, costs for the procedure needs to be analyzed against the potential savings. Such an analysis would help the companies understand whether or not all invoices should be checked.

Third, the basis of selection of those 10% of invoices has not been mentioned. If it is the case that the invoices made by a trainee or an intern, who are prone to commit errors, were checked, then scaling up this checking for all invoices may not make sense. It is also possible that there were some software glitches which led to errors and inconsistencies in 10% of invoices, which were subsequently checked. In this case too, scaling up this method of checking to all invoices does not provide any additional benefits.

To sum up, before giving an advice for a rigorous and thorough check of all purchasing invoices for errors, a further analysis should be carried out on the cause of the inconsistencies and errors, the selection of invoices and the cost of checking. This analysis would help to either substantiate the claim or disprove the hypothesis.

Good Luck

hi there! can someone please help me grade this attempt?

The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:
“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent
of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in
overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy
of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by
demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument recommends that the consulting firm implement a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors because this might help the company get the Windfall account. The argument's line of reasoning stems from the fact that Windfall's accounting department recently double-checked some of their invoices for errors and was able to save $10,000. The author believes that implementing this rigorous policy will help to demonstrate the firm's rigor to Windfall. Stated as such, this argument oversimplifies and distorts the situation at hand. The argument fails to consider several key factors and relies on baseless assumptions. As such, the argument is unconvincing.

First, the argument assumes that by advising clients to institute a policy of double-checking invoices for errors, that this policy will actually result in a net-gain for their clients. The argument fails to consider that the time and money it costs to double check for errors might outweigh the benefits of finding errors. If this is the case, implementing this policy might actually result in a net loss for their clients. In order to improve this argument, the author needs to provide concrete evidence that this policy will have a positive outcome and result in net gains for their clients.

In addition, the argument wrongly assumes that what worked for one company will work for other companies. There is no evidence to indicate that these companies are sufficiently similar enough to warrant the same results. For example, Windfall may be a small corporation that is more prone to have errors as compared to a large company that already has multiple eyes on a single purchasing invoice. Without providing a sufficient comparison for these companies, the argument's reasoning that the double-checking policy will have a positive effect is unwarranted.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence or proof that Windfall evaluates what financial management and consulting firm it should pick on rigor alone. Windfall could take into consideration a number of different considerations when choosing who to partner with. Windfall might value factors such as good customer service and attention to detail. In this case, the consulting firm's double checking policy might actually show that they are not careful and precise the first time around. Another one of Windfall's considerations might be how successful a firm has been in helping its clients increase net gains. If Windfall's clients consistently produce net-losses due to this double checking policy, this might actually turn Windfall off.

In conclusion, the argument laid out by the member of the financial management and consulting firm is weak and unconvincing. To better evaluate this decision, we need to know if implementing the error-checking policy will indeed result in net gains, if the companies being compared are indeed sufficiently similar, and whether Windfall actually considers rigor in selecting a partner firm. Without answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that this argument is more of a stretch than a well reasoned line of thinking.

Good Luck

Hi Sajjad1994, could you evaluate my essay?

The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:

“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”

My answer-

The argument in the memorandum claims that advising the clients to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors will help the clients increase their net gains. The author's line of reasoning is that by checking about 10% of the last month's purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, the company saved some $10,000 in overpayments. At first glance, the author's argument seems valid, but deeper investigation shows that the argument contains some serious loopholes. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention the key factors on which it depends and reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning.

First, the argument readily assumes that the clients will be able to increase their net gains because checking about 10 percent of the last month's purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies helped the company save some $10000 in overpayments. This statement is a stretch because what happened last month might not happen in the coming months. For example, it is possible that next month no errors and inconsistencies occurs in the purchasing invoices. Clearly, checking for these errors would not help the clients save any money this month. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided data from several months or years that showed the same errors and inconsistencies in the purchasing invoices.

Second, the argument assumes that the recommendation of checking all purchasing invoices for error would help them get the Windfall account as this would demonstrate to Windfall the rigorousness of their methods. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the author does not provide us with any further evidence of the requirements of getting the Windfall account. To illustrate, maybe Windfall needs more information about the company's bottom line projections and how the company would help Windfall in ways other than checking for errors in purchasing invoices as they are already using those methods in Windfall. If the argument provided evidence about the requirements of getting the Windfall account, it would have been more convincing.

Finally, the argument should answer questions such as- What are some other ways in which the clients can increase their net gains? How will the company save money in overpayments if there are no errors and inconsistencies in purchasing invoices? Without answers to such questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a well-reasoned inference drawn from logical reasoning.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore weak and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if it provided relevant evidence of several months of data regarding errors and inconsistencies in purchasing invoices rather than just last month's. In order to test the merit of the situation, it is essential to have knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, the argument should clearly state all the requirements for getting the Windfall account. Without this information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.