We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accountin

Question

The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:

“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”

Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

The author claims that in order to increase the client's net gains, the firm should advise them to institute a policy of regularly checking purchasing invoices. This will help land an account with Windfall as it demonstrates the rigorousness of the firm's methods. The conclusion is based on the premise that an employee of Windfall had saved around $10,000 of overpayments by checking previous invoices for errors. However, the argument lacks relevant and sufficient evidence, making several assumptions that could affect key factors of its conclusion. For example, the author generalizes the case to apply to other companies. Furthermore, the author fails to consider if this is as significant as the author assumes it is. Finally, recommending this to the client could result in them losing a potential job with them.

First, the argument assumes that checking invoices for errors will definitely increase their client's net gains. This assumption fails to consider whether firms know of this already, and only Windfall has failed to apply this method. If that is the case, then suggesting to clients that they must check their invoices for errors may come off as redundant and shows lack of experience. This would sacrifice the reputation of the firm and affect their chances of future projects. Therefore, vetting the use of this method before recommending to clients would be beneficial.

Secondly, the effect this had on Windfall may not be continued to be seen if they implemented this method so seriously. This may have been a one-off scenario. Instead, the firm should focus on ensuring methods are in place to prevent manually locating errors, therefore proving useful to the firm. For example, a local coffee shop finds out that they have been double counting last week's orders. This inflation in revenue results in incorrect books. One of their baristas had spotted the issue and solved it immediately. Once the team had learned about it, this issue did not take place again. A consulting firm telling the coffee shop not to do so at this point seems redundant and useless.

Lastly, recommending this information to the client will prove the account useless. Unless the firm offers other services, such as instituting methods to mediate the problem, they will not win the account. Windfall can just ensure the problem is taken care of on their own. Therefore, to ensure they secure the account, they should find other ways to help Windfall with the issue.

In conclusion, the author fails to consider several factors that could help improve their argument. Considering the points made above creates a more sound argument that properly communicates the argument's points. Though their generalization may be correct, without the right evidence to back it up, the argument seems weak.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6

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: 4.5/5  
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

gmattaker3397 · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994 , thank you for your reply!

Just to clarify - Would I get a 6 for the above essay if it was structured better? Is there any resource you recommend to mediate that problem?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Here you go! Your one-stop shop for a perfect 6! https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-gmatclub ... 36251.html Good luck!

gmattaker3397 · Answer

Thank you very much!

mariachiarafico · Answer

Could someone give my essay a rate? Thanks in advance

The argument proposed is based on a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm. The member affirms that the firm has come to know from an employee of Windfall that its accounting department saved the company circa 10.000$ in overpayments by checking 10% of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies. The writer assets that the firm should advise each client to institute a policy of checking all purchasing for errors, in order to increase their net gains. Moreover, the writer believes that this could also help the firm to get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of the firm’s methods. However. 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 assumes that thanks to an employee of Windfall, they have come to know what the company did in order to save money. However, relying on someone’s opinion is a risky move. The employee could have easily known an inaccurate information and therefore distort the reality of the facts. Even if the employee reported the right information, still we can not be sure whether checking last month’s purchasing invoices for inconsistencies has saved the company money or something else did. In order to find out this, we can not rely on someone’s assumption but we do need a reliable research based on data. Second, the argument states that the firm should advise its clients to what Windfall did with its purchasing invoices, since it is believed that this could increase the clients’net gains. Nevertheless, there is no rational correlation between checking all purchasing invoices for errors and increase net gains. Based on an event which only happened once, it is not possible to derive a pattern for everyone. Since the event has not been studied in detail, one could institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors and at the same time lose money. Finally, the conclusion of the argument by relying on weak assumptions turns out to be itself weak. The claimed “rigorousness of our methods” could be true if the recommendation made to its clients was efficient. However, we do not know whether the recommendation made is a positive move for the firm. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as a detailed analysis which shows the correlation between checking the purchasing invoices and the avoided loss. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5  
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   
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: 4/5 
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

mariachiarafico · Answer

Hi, what should I change in order to do better in the paragraph structure rate?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Read the following posts thoroughly and practice more. https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-gmatclub ... 36251.html Good luck!

We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accountin

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