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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
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.
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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
01 Dec 2010, 07:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 officesHidden text (n. Hidden text ) 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.
The author’s argument that the company should close its field offices to increase profitability, because such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This line of reasoning is flawed with several fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The main assumption is that only by closing field offices and doing business centrally will increase profits is flawed. There are several other factors that affect the business of the company such as decline in the overall industry in which this company is operating, increase in the competition in the industry that has eaten the share of the apogee company, or recession in the economy has overall affected the industry. So, these factors can adversely affect the business of the company, despite of the centralization of the operation to cut the operating expenses.
Another flawed reasoning is that the centralization of the operations will help company to improve supervision of all employees. The field offices at various local locations are more effective in monitoring the field staff activities rather than centralized office in the main city. The shutting of local offices does reduce the operating costs, but at the cost of immense lost of business opportunities at local level such as cultivating new local areas for product sales or serving the customers more closely to get the repeat orders at local level by the filed offices. Thus, field offices increase the relation of company with the customers at local ore regional level more effectively than the centralized office.
The author’s extreme reasoning of closing all the field offices is unsubstantiated. There may be some of the field offices whose profitability may be the concern for the management. But, generalizing to close all the field offices may profoundly cut the contact of the company with its field staff, customers, or local channel players. This is the extreme preventive action that may backlash in the future.
To conclude, I must say that this argument is flawed with fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions as discussed above. To make an argument more logical, the author must make some valid assumptions such as consideration of other factors: recession or overall market scenario that may affect the business and the effectiveness of the field offices in building relationships at local level. The author also need to review the extreme view point of shutting all the field offices.
“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 officesHidden text (n. Hidden text ) 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.
The author’s argument that the company should close its field offices to increase profitability, because such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This line of reasoning is flawed with several fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The main assumption is that only by closing field offices and doing business centrally will increase profits is flawed. There are several other factors that affect the business of the company such as decline in the overall industry in which this company is operating, increase in the competition in the industry that has eaten the share of the apogee company, or recession in the economy has overall affected the industry. So, these factors can adversely affect the business of the company, despite of the centralization of the operation to cut the operating expenses.
Another flawed reasoning is that the centralization of the operations will help company to improve supervision of all employees. The field offices at various local locations are more effective in monitoring the field staff activities rather than centralized office in the main city. The shutting of local offices does reduce the operating costs, but at the cost of immense lost of business opportunities at local level such as cultivating new local areas for product sales or serving the customers more closely to get the repeat orders at local level by the filed offices. Thus, field offices increase the relation of company with the customers at local ore regional level more effectively than the centralized office.
The author’s extreme reasoning of closing all the field offices is unsubstantiated. There may be some of the field offices whose profitability may be the concern for the management. But, generalizing to close all the field offices may profoundly cut the contact of the company with its field staff, customers, or local channel players. This is the extreme preventive action that may backlash in the future.
To conclude, I must say that this argument is flawed with fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions as discussed above. To make an argument more logical, the author must make some valid assumptions such as consideration of other factors: recession or overall market scenario that may affect the business and the effectiveness of the field offices in building relationships at local level. The author also need to review the extreme view point of shutting all the field offices.
01 Dec 2010, 16:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey aimkp,
Thanks for the invite! I think this essay will work in the 4.5 range. The structure is pretty solid and definitely answers the question directly and is easy to read, so I think that's strong. My only concern with the structure is that it reads a little bit like a template - you repeat "fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions" in both the intro and conclusion and there are a few other points that make it read a little bit like it's been machine-produced. I'd diversify those phrases just so that you say the same thing but it doesn't look as mechanical.
A few other things that I think hold this back from being a 5+:
-Your first support paragraph also begins with a "forced" line. You say "the main assumption is that only by closing offices...will increase profits is flawed." That's grammatically incorrect and also factually a little off - the assumption isn't flawed, but rather the logic is flawed because it makes the assumption. You may want to change this to say something like "One flaw in the argument is the assumption that...".
-Your second support paragraph may go a little too far - we don't know (as you write) that the field offices ARE better...we can just point out that the argument assumes that it's not the case without having proof for it. I'd tend toward using the other side of the argument as a hypothetical (the argument claims X, but Y could also be true, so it isn't entirely valid reasoning)
-That same paragraph leads with "another flawed reasoning", which isn't grammatically right either. I'd change that to "another example of flawed reasoning is..." or something like that. Because your transitions are what the reader will probably focus on, I'd make them as clear and correct as possible...I think you can get away with more mistakes in the "content" portion, but the structural portion is what you've had time to practice ahead of time so if you're putting in the effort I'd make that as clear as possible to compensate for any writing-and-thinking-quickly mistakes later.
Overall this is really strong in terms of structure and your insights into the flawed reasoning, so I'd say it definitely fits the "pass" test of hitting around 4-4.5, If you want to move that up or give yourself some room for error, I'd recommend the items above.
Good luck!
Thanks for the invite! I think this essay will work in the 4.5 range. The structure is pretty solid and definitely answers the question directly and is easy to read, so I think that's strong. My only concern with the structure is that it reads a little bit like a template - you repeat "fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions" in both the intro and conclusion and there are a few other points that make it read a little bit like it's been machine-produced. I'd diversify those phrases just so that you say the same thing but it doesn't look as mechanical.
A few other things that I think hold this back from being a 5+:
-Your first support paragraph also begins with a "forced" line. You say "the main assumption is that only by closing offices...will increase profits is flawed." That's grammatically incorrect and also factually a little off - the assumption isn't flawed, but rather the logic is flawed because it makes the assumption. You may want to change this to say something like "One flaw in the argument is the assumption that...".
-Your second support paragraph may go a little too far - we don't know (as you write) that the field offices ARE better...we can just point out that the argument assumes that it's not the case without having proof for it. I'd tend toward using the other side of the argument as a hypothetical (the argument claims X, but Y could also be true, so it isn't entirely valid reasoning)
-That same paragraph leads with "another flawed reasoning", which isn't grammatically right either. I'd change that to "another example of flawed reasoning is..." or something like that. Because your transitions are what the reader will probably focus on, I'd make them as clear and correct as possible...I think you can get away with more mistakes in the "content" portion, but the structural portion is what you've had time to practice ahead of time so if you're putting in the effort I'd make that as clear as possible to compensate for any writing-and-thinking-quickly mistakes later.
Overall this is really strong in terms of structure and your insights into the flawed reasoning, so I'd say it definitely fits the "pass" test of hitting around 4-4.5, If you want to move that up or give yourself some room for error, I'd recommend the items above.
Good luck!
19 Dec 2010, 22:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
VeritasPrepBrian
Good One...
