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 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.
30 May 2022, 19:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Response:
The argument presented here claims that in order to reduce the number of accidents on-the-job and increase productivity at Quiot, they should shorten the 3 week work shifts by an hour so that they get sufficient amount of sleep, as recommended by the experts. However this argument is incomplete, and cannot be deemed solidly reasonable unless few clarifications are reached.
One of the underlying assumption is that Quiot manufacturing and Panoply industry plants are quite similar and due to which arguments claims that reducing the work shift by an hour in the latter unit has seen 30 percent less accidents as compared to the former. First of all there is no enough information to prove that these both units are similar in nature, the kind of manufacturing they both carry out, and the process via which they hire the employees, maybe the Panoply unit hires the people only after having a certain degree of work experience due to which the employees tend to be more careful with their work resulting in lesser accidents. The products manufactured in Panoply unit maybe less hazardous than the one in Quiot. In order to bolster the claim the author needs to prove the similarities between both the industries, provide information about how both the units fall into the same category of manufacturing and reside in the similar environmental, economical conditions.
Secondly, the argument relies on the expert advice who suggests that many on-the-job mishaps happens due to lack of sleep and fatigue among the workers. We need to know more about the study conducted by the experts in order to reach this conclusion. Did the study include wide range of manufacturing industries, what were other factors that played a role during this study and most importantly it also depends on which location this study was conducted. Giving more information about the study itself and proving that the sample included in the study done by experts is exactly like that in real world, and also making sure that there were no other external factors that skewed the study results will help strengthen the claim.
Lastly, given that we do not answers to a lot of underlying questions, the argument cripples and is unreasonable to overthrow any kind of conclusions.
The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Response:
The argument presented here claims that in order to reduce the number of accidents on-the-job and increase productivity at Quiot, they should shorten the 3 week work shifts by an hour so that they get sufficient amount of sleep, as recommended by the experts. However this argument is incomplete, and cannot be deemed solidly reasonable unless few clarifications are reached.
One of the underlying assumption is that Quiot manufacturing and Panoply industry plants are quite similar and due to which arguments claims that reducing the work shift by an hour in the latter unit has seen 30 percent less accidents as compared to the former. First of all there is no enough information to prove that these both units are similar in nature, the kind of manufacturing they both carry out, and the process via which they hire the employees, maybe the Panoply unit hires the people only after having a certain degree of work experience due to which the employees tend to be more careful with their work resulting in lesser accidents. The products manufactured in Panoply unit maybe less hazardous than the one in Quiot. In order to bolster the claim the author needs to prove the similarities between both the industries, provide information about how both the units fall into the same category of manufacturing and reside in the similar environmental, economical conditions.
Secondly, the argument relies on the expert advice who suggests that many on-the-job mishaps happens due to lack of sleep and fatigue among the workers. We need to know more about the study conducted by the experts in order to reach this conclusion. Did the study include wide range of manufacturing industries, what were other factors that played a role during this study and most importantly it also depends on which location this study was conducted. Giving more information about the study itself and proving that the sample included in the study done by experts is exactly like that in real world, and also making sure that there were no other external factors that skewed the study results will help strengthen the claim.
Lastly, given that we do not answers to a lot of underlying questions, the argument cripples and is unreasonable to overthrow any kind of conclusions.
30 May 2022, 22:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 4 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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
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!
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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
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
22rashmi
09 Jun 2022, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Sajjad1994
Please rate my response
The argument claims that at Quiot manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant ,therefore in order to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents and increase productivity at Quiot manufacturing, they should shorten each of their three work shifts by one hour. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention key factors , on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the work at Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant are quite similar and Quiot Manufacturing has been experiencing 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than the latter. This statement is a stretch. For instance, at Panoply most of the work is performed by automated machinery, while work at Quiot is labor-intensive, which could be the reason that employees at Quiot are getting more injured than Panoply. The argument could be more clearer if it explicitly mentions all the relevant facts.
Secondly, the argument claims that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. This statement is very weak and unconvincing, as the argument has not provided any evidence supporting this factor. For instance, lack of experience among employees of Quiot Manufacturing could be the reason behind all the accidents. Maybe panoply hires employees having a certain degree of work experience in that work domain. If the argument had provided more evidence about the exployee’s experience, it could have been much more convincing.
Finally, the argument has mentioned that experts say “significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers.”, but no statistics have been provided to support that. There has been no mention that the survey conducted by experts is among industries under the same work domain or not. It would have been much clearer if the argument had provided any statistics to support its conclusion.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons, it could have been much more strengthened, if the author clearly mentioned the relevant facts. With this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Please rate my response
The argument claims that at Quiot manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant ,therefore in order to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents and increase productivity at Quiot manufacturing, they should shorten each of their three work shifts by one hour. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention key factors , on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the work at Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant are quite similar and Quiot Manufacturing has been experiencing 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than the latter. This statement is a stretch. For instance, at Panoply most of the work is performed by automated machinery, while work at Quiot is labor-intensive, which could be the reason that employees at Quiot are getting more injured than Panoply. The argument could be more clearer if it explicitly mentions all the relevant facts.
Secondly, the argument claims that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. This statement is very weak and unconvincing, as the argument has not provided any evidence supporting this factor. For instance, lack of experience among employees of Quiot Manufacturing could be the reason behind all the accidents. Maybe panoply hires employees having a certain degree of work experience in that work domain. If the argument had provided more evidence about the exployee’s experience, it could have been much more convincing.
Finally, the argument has mentioned that experts say “significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers.”, but no statistics have been provided to support that. There has been no mention that the survey conducted by experts is among industries under the same work domain or not. It would have been much clearer if the argument had provided any statistics to support its conclusion.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons, it could have been much more strengthened, if the author clearly mentioned the relevant facts. With this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
