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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
15 Nov 2022, 04:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author claims that in order to increase the client's net gains, the firm should advise them to institute a policy of regularly checking purchasing invoices. This will help land an account with Windfall as it demonstrates the rigorousness of the firm's methods. The conclusion is based on the premise that an employee of Windfall had saved around $10,000 of overpayments by checking previous invoices for errors. However, the argument lacks relevant and sufficient evidence, making several assumptions that could affect key factors of its conclusion. For example, the author generalizes the case to apply to other companies. Furthermore, the author fails to consider if this is as significant as the author assumes it is. Finally, recommending this to the client could result in them losing a potential job with them.
First, the argument assumes that checking invoices for errors will definitely increase their client's net gains. This assumption fails to consider whether firms know of this already, and only Windfall has failed to apply this method. If that is the case, then suggesting to clients that they must check their invoices for errors may come off as redundant and shows lack of experience. This would sacrifice the reputation of the firm and affect their chances of future projects. Therefore, vetting the use of this method before recommending to clients would be beneficial.
Secondly, the effect this had on Windfall may not be continued to be seen if they implemented this method so seriously. This may have been a one-off scenario. Instead, the firm should focus on ensuring methods are in place to prevent manually locating errors, therefore proving useful to the firm. For example, a local coffee shop finds out that they have been double counting last week's orders. This inflation in revenue results in incorrect books. One of their baristas had spotted the issue and solved it immediately. Once the team had learned about it, this issue did not take place again. A consulting firm telling the coffee shop not to do so at this point seems redundant and useless.
Lastly, recommending this information to the client will prove the account useless. Unless the firm offers other services, such as instituting methods to mediate the problem, they will not win the account. Windfall can just ensure the problem is taken care of on their own. Therefore, to ensure they secure the account, they should find other ways to help Windfall with the issue.
In conclusion, the author fails to consider several factors that could help improve their argument. Considering the points made above creates a more sound argument that properly communicates the argument's points. Though their generalization may be correct, without the right evidence to back it up, the argument seems weak.
“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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author claims that in order to increase the client's net gains, the firm should advise them to institute a policy of regularly checking purchasing invoices. This will help land an account with Windfall as it demonstrates the rigorousness of the firm's methods. The conclusion is based on the premise that an employee of Windfall had saved around $10,000 of overpayments by checking previous invoices for errors. However, the argument lacks relevant and sufficient evidence, making several assumptions that could affect key factors of its conclusion. For example, the author generalizes the case to apply to other companies. Furthermore, the author fails to consider if this is as significant as the author assumes it is. Finally, recommending this to the client could result in them losing a potential job with them.
First, the argument assumes that checking invoices for errors will definitely increase their client's net gains. This assumption fails to consider whether firms know of this already, and only Windfall has failed to apply this method. If that is the case, then suggesting to clients that they must check their invoices for errors may come off as redundant and shows lack of experience. This would sacrifice the reputation of the firm and affect their chances of future projects. Therefore, vetting the use of this method before recommending to clients would be beneficial.
Secondly, the effect this had on Windfall may not be continued to be seen if they implemented this method so seriously. This may have been a one-off scenario. Instead, the firm should focus on ensuring methods are in place to prevent manually locating errors, therefore proving useful to the firm. For example, a local coffee shop finds out that they have been double counting last week's orders. This inflation in revenue results in incorrect books. One of their baristas had spotted the issue and solved it immediately. Once the team had learned about it, this issue did not take place again. A consulting firm telling the coffee shop not to do so at this point seems redundant and useless.
Lastly, recommending this information to the client will prove the account useless. Unless the firm offers other services, such as instituting methods to mediate the problem, they will not win the account. Windfall can just ensure the problem is taken care of on their own. Therefore, to ensure they secure the account, they should find other ways to help Windfall with the issue.
In conclusion, the author fails to consider several factors that could help improve their argument. Considering the points made above creates a more sound argument that properly communicates the argument's points. Though their generalization may be correct, without the right evidence to back it up, the argument seems weak.
15 Nov 2022, 07:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
gmattaker3397
15 Nov 2022, 07:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Sajjad1994, thank you for your reply!
Just to clarify - Would I get a 6 for the above essay if it was structured better? Is there any resource you recommend to mediate that problem?
Just to clarify - Would I get a 6 for the above essay if it was structured better? Is there any resource you recommend to mediate that problem?
