Request to Rate AWA

Question

Hi All/Experts,

Request you to rate my essay. Any inputs would be great. Thanks in anticipation.

The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen
foods:
“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.”

---------------------------My Response---------------------------------------

The argument presented states that with the increase in experience of an organization or industry in a field, the organization or industry becomes more efficient. The argument in it's presented form is seriouly flawed and unconvincing.

Firstly, the argument states that over time an organization is bound to learn to do things better than it previously did. This statement readily assumes that the organization has sufficient scope of improvement in its existing processes and is not at a level of saturation of its efficiency. Also, the statement assumes that if there is scope of improvement in efficiency, over time the organization will find ways and processes to make changes and become more efficient.

Secondly, the argument presents an example of color film processing industry where the cost supposedly decreased over a period of time. The example is used in a context to support argument that over time as cost decreased it must be due to the industry becoming more efficient. This is a seriously flawed assumption as there might be other reasons such as decrease in film costs, decrease in labor costs, etc. which may have a substantial effect on lowering the cost of processing a color film.

Thirdly, the argument extends its conclusion to the food processing industry. This extension of the conclusion is ill-concieved and open to attacks of reasoning. The argument draws a parallel between the color processing industry and food processing industry by assuming that factors effecting one industry type would also effect the other industry type. Moreover, the argument provides no examples or proofs where the extension of the above conclusion is valid across industries. Additionally, it is stated as the organization will celeberate its 25th birthday, the organization will minimize costs and thus maximize profits. It assumes that minimizing costs is directly related to maximizing profits and there are no other factors like effects of decreasing customer base, other competetive organizations, etc. which may impact sales which in turn may impact overall profits.

In conclusion, the argument in its current form is seriously flawed, irrational, and unconvincing. The argument is based on assumptions with no facts or examples cited to support itself. If the author would have provided concrete evidence to support his argument, it would have been much more defensible.

KevinRocci · Answer

Howdy!

There are some things that you are doing good, like keeping your intro and conclusion succinct and direct. This saves you time to beef up your body paragraphs.

In terms of improvement, you have some grammar errors, run-on sentences and sentence fragments. Your style is awkward at times and stilt. You need to work on making it flow nice and easy from sentence to sentence. Also, I'd like to see more put into the body paragraph. You are identifying flaws but you could add some examples or context to make them stronger. Also you use some phrasing that is a little ambiguous. They feel a little bit like buzzwords. I am not sure what they mean. For example what does "scope of improvement" and "level of saturation of its efficiency" mean?

I hope this helps.

reddevils · Answer

Kevin - Thanks for the input. I made the mistake of spending too much time trying to figure out how I would structure my response. When I finished I could not review the essay and when I re-read it after the 30 min mark, I was almost cringing at the quality. Thank you again for pointing out specifics where I could improve. Would work on the same and hopefully would make improvements.

Cheers...

Cheers...

reddevils · Answer

Hi,

I gave GMAT Prep test today so did write another AWA. Took care of the points mentioned by Kevin and also I believe I used my time well. Would appreciate the inputs.

"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."

------------------------

The argument concludes that people, in general, are less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were 10 years ago. The argument cites couple of instances to derive this conclusion. The argument in it's current form and with the instances quoted is flawed and based on assumptions whose validity can be questioned without much effort.

Firstly, the argument compares general population of 2 different decades on the regulation of their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses without providing any relevant data or information on which this comparison is drawn. The argument has many pitfalls as it makes major assumptions. For example, general population of previous decade may be consuming red meat and fatty cheeses without any regulation and in high quantities. The population of the current decade may be much more aware about the negatives of high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and thus would be regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses manifolds compared to general people of the previous decade. Additionally, the argument assumes that more people buying red meat and fatty cheeses this decade implies that the people of current decade are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.

Secondly, the argument quotes a example of Heart's Delight store. The store now also sells red meat and fatty cheeses along with organic fruits and vegetables. The argument tries to justify it's conclusion based on this example but the argument ignores the possibility of the store increasing it's domain of products and inturn catering to a wider audience which consists of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian population. Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumtion of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so. Moreover, the store may be appealing to a select minority who do not regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and not the people in general.

Thirdly, another example is quoted in the argument to support it's conclusion. Good earth cafe may be making a modest living when compared to the new House of Beef but this in no way implies that people, in general, are less concious about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. There may be a scenario where the Beef House may have greate range of services than the Good Earth Cafe. AFor example, the Beef House may be providing home delivery services which caters to larger audience while Good Earth Cafe does not. Also, there may be a case where the owners of Good Earth cafe are less ambitious and happy with the current operation of their restaurant and may not want to extend their operations which in turn might lead of increased sales and profit. Thus, citing this example to support the conclusion is like comparing apples and oranges.

In conclusion, the argument makes derives a conclusion about people in general about they regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on various assumptions. These assumptions are open to attacks of reasoning and thus make the argument weak and seriously flawed. The argument could have provided relevant data to compare people's views regarding their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses over the decade to support it's claim. Moreover, much more relevant examples may have been much more beneficial in supporting and justifying the currently flawed argument's conclusion.

KevinRocci · Answer

Happy to help!

This intro could be improved a tad. In the beginning you just need to get started and get past the intro, so I would recommend tightening up your intro. Your first sentence is strong and powerful!

But then the second sentence doesn't do much and the ideas could be combined with the last sentence: "However, the conclusion is based on flawed logic and assumptions that would need to be corrected before this would be considered a convincing argument." This paragraph is good, and on it's way to being great. One thing you need to do is return to the main conclusion of the argument and the end of the paragraph and explain explicitly how the flaw you just pointed out makes the conclusion doubtable. Always return to the conclusion at the end of your body paragraph and talk about how it affects the conclusion. What particular part of the conclusion is weakened and why. Also, let's look at one of your sentences: "The population of the current decade may be much more aware of about the negatives of the high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses , and thus would be regulating regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses manifolds compared to the general people of the previous decade." As you can see from my corrections, I am adding some articles and also taking out awkward phrasing. You should aim to save some time towards the end of writing to go back and make these types of changes and edits.

You hit the mark perfectly in this sentence: "Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so." I think this is the best sentence in the paragraph, and you should get it much faster. This gets at the heart of the issue and really should be the focus of this paragraph.

Your intro sentence to this paragraph is fairly weak and doesn't provide much information. Your next sentence is much stronger and should be the point of focus. Conclusion is generally good and sums everything up nicely. Overall I think that you are doing a great job of picking apart the argument and identifying the fatal flaws. But you'll need to work on editing and revising at the end to really boost your score.

Hope this helps!

reddevils · Answer

Thanks a lot Kevin. Could not post earlier but your inputs helped a lot! Would let you know how did I fare in my actual AWA.

Cheers...

reddevils · Answer

Hey Kevin,

I scored a decent 5.5 in AWA. Thanks for your inputs which helped me fine tuning my thinking and improving my essay structure.

Cheers to you...

KevinRocci · Answer

Wow! Congratulations!!! A decent 5.5 indeed! That so awesome to hear! Glad to hear that I could help a little bit, but don't pass too much of the credit off. You were the one who had to do all the heavy lifting and actually perform at that level!

Cheers! Kevin

Request to Rate AWA

How would you rate this AWA?

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards