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 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.
31 Dec 2013, 22:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
"We are spending too much on free customer service after a sale has been made; we need to limit our warranty to two years in order to improve our profit margins. The current lifetime warranty can lead to costs decades into a product's life cycle. Also, we pay our customer service employees a premium because they must possess expert skills across the entirety of our very diverse product line, including products we no longer sell."
The argument suggests that the company should reduce its customer service after a sale has been made. If further adds by stating that a lifetime product warranty should be stopped. Instead, a two year warranty should be introduced. The argument argues that a lifetime warranty adds long run costs to the products life cycle. The argument then suggests that the customer service sataff is over paid. As all customer service agents are experts across the product line, even discontinued products, they require a premium payment, which hearts the company's bottom line profit. The argument is weak because the evidence presented to in support of the claims is distorted at best. A lot of additional data is missing which needs to be taken into account is order to evaluate the argument.
The arguments begins by stating that the company is spending too much on customer service and that it needs to limit the time span of he warranty from 'lifetime' to 'two years'. To evaluate this statement additional information is needed. For example- the life span of the product. If a products life cycle spans for several decades, like that of a car, 2 years warranty is not enough. In addition it is also unclear what the extent of warranty is and how much cost it adds to the bottom line.
Secondly the argument adds by stating that the current scheme adds decade of long term costs to the products life cycle. Clearly, more information is needed to evaluate the argument. A life-time warranty might add a extra cost to the product, however depending on the type of the product it might add extra value. For instance if the manufacturer produces luxury yachts, which costs millions of dollar a piece. It might be a good idea to reinforce the customers faith in the product by providing a lengthy warranty. Therefore, the reasoning presented is inconclusive and needs more plausible reasoning.
Finally the argument states that maintaining an expert customer service team is a waste of resources. Undoubtedly, a good customer service team is a great strength to any company. It adds more layers of value to the end customer and makes the company relevant in the market place. Thus,arguing against a specialty customer service team seems far-fetched.
In conclusion, it can be said that more information regarding the companies products in needed to justify the claims of the argument. Because, as it is, they are inconclusive and weak.
The argument suggests that the company should reduce its customer service after a sale has been made. If further adds by stating that a lifetime product warranty should be stopped. Instead, a two year warranty should be introduced. The argument argues that a lifetime warranty adds long run costs to the products life cycle. The argument then suggests that the customer service sataff is over paid. As all customer service agents are experts across the product line, even discontinued products, they require a premium payment, which hearts the company's bottom line profit. The argument is weak because the evidence presented to in support of the claims is distorted at best. A lot of additional data is missing which needs to be taken into account is order to evaluate the argument.
The arguments begins by stating that the company is spending too much on customer service and that it needs to limit the time span of he warranty from 'lifetime' to 'two years'. To evaluate this statement additional information is needed. For example- the life span of the product. If a products life cycle spans for several decades, like that of a car, 2 years warranty is not enough. In addition it is also unclear what the extent of warranty is and how much cost it adds to the bottom line.
Secondly the argument adds by stating that the current scheme adds decade of long term costs to the products life cycle. Clearly, more information is needed to evaluate the argument. A life-time warranty might add a extra cost to the product, however depending on the type of the product it might add extra value. For instance if the manufacturer produces luxury yachts, which costs millions of dollar a piece. It might be a good idea to reinforce the customers faith in the product by providing a lengthy warranty. Therefore, the reasoning presented is inconclusive and needs more plausible reasoning.
Finally the argument states that maintaining an expert customer service team is a waste of resources. Undoubtedly, a good customer service team is a great strength to any company. It adds more layers of value to the end customer and makes the company relevant in the market place. Thus,arguing against a specialty customer service team seems far-fetched.
In conclusion, it can be said that more information regarding the companies products in needed to justify the claims of the argument. Because, as it is, they are inconclusive and weak.
04 Jan 2014, 14:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hmm... this needs some work. I'd give it somewhere in the 3.5 or so range. There are sentence fragments (For example- the life span of the product.) that are being treated as full sentences; subject-verb agreement issues (The arguments begins), etc.
Also, I prefer to see that each paragraph have at least 3-4 sentences.
I'd spend some more time in the AWA space.
Hope this helps.
-Brian
Also, I prefer to see that each paragraph have at least 3-4 sentences.
I'd spend some more time in the AWA space.
Hope this helps.
-Brian
Moderator:
