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 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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.
08 Sep 2013, 14:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument that lunch program was a huge success and helped company increase its profits substantially omits various concerns on basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument's recommendation that company should make the program permanent is unconvincing and ill-proofed. Therefore the argument is not sound and convincing.
First, the argument mentions that company Z started offering free gourmet lunches to its employees to encourage them to remain in building and work hard. This statement is followed by a claim that lunch program increased the average number of hours worked employees and also company's profits. This claim itself is not convincing and does not demonstrate any correlation. For example, it could be that after the lunch program, company had to lay-off employees to cut off costs, and because of this lay-off average number of hours worked by employees increased. Also, it could be that because of free gourmet lunches workers started spending more time on work but that time did not translate into any productive work. So, without having any information about lay-offs and actual increase in productivity the claim is ill-reasoned and no correlation can be proved.
Second, The argument provides an evidence that company's profit during the same period increased. This evidence does not help to substantiate the argument. Company's profit depends on number of factors such as operational cost, manufacturing costs and profit margin etc. The argument does not mention any of these factors.For instance, during the same period competitor's market share drop or there could be new product launches during the same period and these factors helped company take a lead and increase its profits,so even though program may have been a success, it did not play much role in increasing company's profits. Without any information on them, the argument's recommendation to make program permanent is unconvincing.
In conclusion, if the argument could have proved a strong correlation and mentioned all the factors involved in increasing its profits, the argument would have been better substantiated. But in this case, without any convincing information the argument's recommendation is illogical and therefore, the argument is unpersuasive and open to debate.
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument that lunch program was a huge success and helped company increase its profits substantially omits various concerns on basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument's recommendation that company should make the program permanent is unconvincing and ill-proofed. Therefore the argument is not sound and convincing.
First, the argument mentions that company Z started offering free gourmet lunches to its employees to encourage them to remain in building and work hard. This statement is followed by a claim that lunch program increased the average number of hours worked employees and also company's profits. This claim itself is not convincing and does not demonstrate any correlation. For example, it could be that after the lunch program, company had to lay-off employees to cut off costs, and because of this lay-off average number of hours worked by employees increased. Also, it could be that because of free gourmet lunches workers started spending more time on work but that time did not translate into any productive work. So, without having any information about lay-offs and actual increase in productivity the claim is ill-reasoned and no correlation can be proved.
Second, The argument provides an evidence that company's profit during the same period increased. This evidence does not help to substantiate the argument. Company's profit depends on number of factors such as operational cost, manufacturing costs and profit margin etc. The argument does not mention any of these factors.For instance, during the same period competitor's market share drop or there could be new product launches during the same period and these factors helped company take a lead and increase its profits,so even though program may have been a success, it did not play much role in increasing company's profits. Without any information on them, the argument's recommendation to make program permanent is unconvincing.
In conclusion, if the argument could have proved a strong correlation and mentioned all the factors involved in increasing its profits, the argument would have been better substantiated. But in this case, without any convincing information the argument's recommendation is illogical and therefore, the argument is unpersuasive and open to debate.
08 Sep 2013, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
I would give this essay a 4.5 - 5.5. It is well organized, has good topic sentences and clear analysis. However, your introduction seems abrupt and there are only two points made. If you could add a 3rd body paragraph or write an introduction that matches the tone and style of the essay it could be improved to top scores.
akijuneja
08 Sep 2023, 22:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my essay
The prompt makes the case that the increase in working hours for the employees during the six month period of the experiment where Company Z provided gourment lunches to its employees was also simultaneously followed by an increase in the Company’s profits. While at the face value, this arguments seems compelling, however on deeper investigation, this argumenet presents several flaws which seriously undermines the statement.
Firstly, the author believes that the simultaneous occurence of the events during the six months when the Company provided gourment lunches to the employees, increase in woking hours of the employees and rise in Company’s profits are all correlated. While the number of hours during which the employees stayed in the Company may be justified because they did not have to leave the premises to get lunch, however increase in working hours and increase in profits cannot be justified. The increased work hours maybe due to a variety of reasons like increased workload during that period of time, bonus incentive, and so on. Similarly, increase in Company’s profits can also be due to a variety of reasons like increased sales, price reduction of raw materials or processing, effective management and decreased competition and so on. Without knowing whether the workers had extra workload or other factors have played a role in the Company’s profits, the three events cannot be correlated.
Even considering the three events are correlated, the argument still stands flawed as an experiement which worked for the six month period might not be so effective in the long run. To determine whether it will be successful if implemented successfully, it is necessary to find the answers to the following questions: Did the workers work harder and longer because they were motivated by goument lunches? Do majority of the workers prefer staying indoor and have gorument lunches or go outside and eat meals of their choice? Were the employees aware of the ongoing experiment and did it influence their behavior? The answers to these questions play a vital role in figuring out the success of this scheme in the long run.
Finally, this arugment is based on the assumption that work hours is directly proportional to work productivity, thereby drawing the conclusion that since the employees worked longer during the six month period, the Company witnessed an increased in profits. However this assumption is faulty as there had been several studies showing that worker effiicieny cannot be directly correlated to the number or working hours.
Therefore, the argument is based on several logical fallacies and is unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It can be strengthened further if the author mentions all the relevant facts associated with the assumptions.
The prompt makes the case that the increase in working hours for the employees during the six month period of the experiment where Company Z provided gourment lunches to its employees was also simultaneously followed by an increase in the Company’s profits. While at the face value, this arguments seems compelling, however on deeper investigation, this argumenet presents several flaws which seriously undermines the statement.
Firstly, the author believes that the simultaneous occurence of the events during the six months when the Company provided gourment lunches to the employees, increase in woking hours of the employees and rise in Company’s profits are all correlated. While the number of hours during which the employees stayed in the Company may be justified because they did not have to leave the premises to get lunch, however increase in working hours and increase in profits cannot be justified. The increased work hours maybe due to a variety of reasons like increased workload during that period of time, bonus incentive, and so on. Similarly, increase in Company’s profits can also be due to a variety of reasons like increased sales, price reduction of raw materials or processing, effective management and decreased competition and so on. Without knowing whether the workers had extra workload or other factors have played a role in the Company’s profits, the three events cannot be correlated.
Even considering the three events are correlated, the argument still stands flawed as an experiement which worked for the six month period might not be so effective in the long run. To determine whether it will be successful if implemented successfully, it is necessary to find the answers to the following questions: Did the workers work harder and longer because they were motivated by goument lunches? Do majority of the workers prefer staying indoor and have gorument lunches or go outside and eat meals of their choice? Were the employees aware of the ongoing experiment and did it influence their behavior? The answers to these questions play a vital role in figuring out the success of this scheme in the long run.
Finally, this arugment is based on the assumption that work hours is directly proportional to work productivity, thereby drawing the conclusion that since the employees worked longer during the six month period, the Company witnessed an increased in profits. However this assumption is faulty as there had been several studies showing that worker effiicieny cannot be directly correlated to the number or working hours.
Therefore, the argument is based on several logical fallacies and is unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It can be strengthened further if the author mentions all the relevant facts associated with the assumptions.
