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 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 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!
13 Mar 2023, 13:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.
“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 maintain better supervision of all employees.”
Answer:
The argument claims that the Apogee company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location, and concludes that it should go back to operating from a single location and close down its field offices in order to increase profitability and reduce costs. the argument proceeds by stating that this move would help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of 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 severely flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the Apogee company was more profitable than it is today because it was operating in a single location rather than in several field offices. This claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there is no data or evidence backing this claim. For all we know, the decrease in profitability could be attributed to other factors. If the argument had provided a detailed report of all the costs incurred by the company and their increase as well as a comparison between profitability when the company operated in one location and when it began operating from multiple locations, the argument would have been much clearer.
Second, the argument claims that reverting to a single location and closing down the field offices would increase profitability and reduce costs. This claim is again very weak and unconvincing. For instance, the cost of moving back to a single location could be too high, a cost that the author may not have accounted for. Additionally, the author seems to discard the benefits provided by having multiple field offices, benefits which should be important enough for the company to choose to divide its operation location into several offices in the first place. The argument would be much more convincing had it provided the reason or benefits of having several field offices as opposed to a one location of operations.
Finally, the argument seems to take for granted the idea that moving all the employees into a single location will undoubtably make it easier for the company to supervise them. What if there was not enough managers or supervisor provided to supervise a large number of employees all at once? It is common knowledge that dividing people into groups and sections makes it easier for the supervisors to monitor them and follow up on the work. Additionally, what if putting all the employees in the same location would make them uncomfortable as the place becomes crowded and thus making them less productive? We would then expect a decline in efficiency and therefore in profitability. Without any convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, the argument is heavily erroneous and flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened had the author provided all the relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.
“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 maintain better supervision of all employees.”
Answer:
The argument claims that the Apogee company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location, and concludes that it should go back to operating from a single location and close down its field offices in order to increase profitability and reduce costs. the argument proceeds by stating that this move would help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of 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 severely flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the Apogee company was more profitable than it is today because it was operating in a single location rather than in several field offices. This claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there is no data or evidence backing this claim. For all we know, the decrease in profitability could be attributed to other factors. If the argument had provided a detailed report of all the costs incurred by the company and their increase as well as a comparison between profitability when the company operated in one location and when it began operating from multiple locations, the argument would have been much clearer.
Second, the argument claims that reverting to a single location and closing down the field offices would increase profitability and reduce costs. This claim is again very weak and unconvincing. For instance, the cost of moving back to a single location could be too high, a cost that the author may not have accounted for. Additionally, the author seems to discard the benefits provided by having multiple field offices, benefits which should be important enough for the company to choose to divide its operation location into several offices in the first place. The argument would be much more convincing had it provided the reason or benefits of having several field offices as opposed to a one location of operations.
Finally, the argument seems to take for granted the idea that moving all the employees into a single location will undoubtably make it easier for the company to supervise them. What if there was not enough managers or supervisor provided to supervise a large number of employees all at once? It is common knowledge that dividing people into groups and sections makes it easier for the supervisors to monitor them and follow up on the work. Additionally, what if putting all the employees in the same location would make them uncomfortable as the place becomes crowded and thus making them less productive? We would then expect a decline in efficiency and therefore in profitability. Without any convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, the argument is heavily erroneous and flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened had the author provided all the relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
14 Mar 2023, 02:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/6
The essay is generally well-organized and coherent, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author effectively uses transition words and phrases to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. However, there are a few instances where the argument could be more clearly stated and the connections between ideas more explicit.
Anatomy: 5.5/6
The essay follows a standard structure, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author effectively uses topic sentences to introduce each paragraph's main idea, and provides evidence and analysis to support their claims. The essay could be improved by adding more specific examples to illustrate the author's points.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5/6
The essay contains well-formed paragraphs with clear topic sentences, supporting evidence, and analysis. However, some of the paragraphs could be more focused and concise, with unnecessary information or tangential points removed.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The essay demonstrates a strong command of language and grammar, with clear and concise sentences that effectively convey the author's ideas. The essay is free of grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5/6
The author uses a range of vocabulary that is appropriate for the essay's tone and level of complexity. There are a few instances where the author could use more precise or varied vocabulary to better convey their ideas.
Overall, the essay effectively critiques the argument put forth in the Apogee Company memorandum. The author identifies several key weaknesses in the argument's reasoning and use of evidence, and suggests ways in which the argument could be strengthened. The essay is well-written and effectively communicates the author's ideas.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/6
The essay is generally well-organized and coherent, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author effectively uses transition words and phrases to connect ideas within and between paragraphs. However, there are a few instances where the argument could be more clearly stated and the connections between ideas more explicit.
Anatomy: 5.5/6
The essay follows a standard structure, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author effectively uses topic sentences to introduce each paragraph's main idea, and provides evidence and analysis to support their claims. The essay could be improved by adding more specific examples to illustrate the author's points.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5/6
The essay contains well-formed paragraphs with clear topic sentences, supporting evidence, and analysis. However, some of the paragraphs could be more focused and concise, with unnecessary information or tangential points removed.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The essay demonstrates a strong command of language and grammar, with clear and concise sentences that effectively convey the author's ideas. The essay is free of grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5/6
The author uses a range of vocabulary that is appropriate for the essay's tone and level of complexity. There are a few instances where the author could use more precise or varied vocabulary to better convey their ideas.
Overall, the essay effectively critiques the argument put forth in the Apogee Company memorandum. The author identifies several key weaknesses in the argument's reasoning and use of evidence, and suggests ways in which the argument could be strengthened. The essay is well-written and effectively communicates the author's ideas.
JadKhairallah
Moderator:
