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 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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
21 Jan 2022, 10:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
“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 offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintains better supervision of all employees.”
The argument from a memorandum claims that conducting all operations in one single location can increase a company’s profitability. Stated in this way the argument is inconclusive and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of a leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that things that happened in the past will actually reflect on all forms in the future. The statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way, because there could be several marketing indicators that led to Apogee creating new locations as profitable ventures in the business.
For example, it could be possible that the company had hit the ceiling in a particular geography and the only way to continue expanding was through building new offices in different areas. Clearly, solely relying on the past is not a good indicator of how things will turn out in the future. The argument could be much clearer if it explicitly stated Apogee’s size, revenue, and staff while making this claim.
Second, the argument claims that centralizing the workforce by cutting down on regional and field offices would improve profitability. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between centralizing and profitability. To illustrate, often centralizing instead of expanding could save a lot of upfront fixed cost at the very beginning, but after running for a while it starts to gain a hefty amount of money and greatly offset the cost. So centralizing and profitability might actually not toward in the same direction. Further, cutting off regional and field offices might also lead to harmful employee sentiments at the best and costly layoffs at the worst that the company may never recover from. If the argument had provided evidence that expanding is never going to turn profitable, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument should answer questions such as: Why are the new offices not profitable? What are some of the financial projections for expanding new offices? What are the contributions of the field and regional offices to the company’s overall financial status? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more to wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without that information, the argument remains indefensible and open to debate.
The argument from a memorandum claims that conducting all operations in one single location can increase a company’s profitability. Stated in this way the argument is inconclusive and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of a leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that things that happened in the past will actually reflect on all forms in the future. The statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way, because there could be several marketing indicators that led to Apogee creating new locations as profitable ventures in the business.
For example, it could be possible that the company had hit the ceiling in a particular geography and the only way to continue expanding was through building new offices in different areas. Clearly, solely relying on the past is not a good indicator of how things will turn out in the future. The argument could be much clearer if it explicitly stated Apogee’s size, revenue, and staff while making this claim.
Second, the argument claims that centralizing the workforce by cutting down on regional and field offices would improve profitability. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between centralizing and profitability. To illustrate, often centralizing instead of expanding could save a lot of upfront fixed cost at the very beginning, but after running for a while it starts to gain a hefty amount of money and greatly offset the cost. So centralizing and profitability might actually not toward in the same direction. Further, cutting off regional and field offices might also lead to harmful employee sentiments at the best and costly layoffs at the worst that the company may never recover from. If the argument had provided evidence that expanding is never going to turn profitable, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument should answer questions such as: Why are the new offices not profitable? What are some of the financial projections for expanding new offices? What are the contributions of the field and regional offices to the company’s overall financial status? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more to wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without that information, the argument remains indefensible and open to debate.
21 Jan 2022, 12:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5-6 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
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: 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!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
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: 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
rrrkkk
