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 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
19 May 2018, 17:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello fellow GMATers,
Please rate my AWA essay below! It was my first one and I finished in the last second and didn't get the chance to proof read as thoroughly as I wanted. Let me know what I did well and what I can work on!
Many thanks,
Gray
------------------------------- Prompt -------------------------------
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 2 0 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.
------------------------------- Essay -------------------------------
The argument asserts that because Olympic foods shares the same principles of process improvements as that of color film processing that it will expect to minimize costs and maximize its profits. The number of years Olympic foods has been in business is also another factor the argument claims will help it become more efficient. Both of these points are invalid, making the argument questionable and unsubstationable.
The notion that process improvements in color film processing can be applied to food processing is a erroneous one. It is clear that the steps needed to complete a color film will be widely different than the steps needed to process food. Since this is the case, how can one expect improvements in the stages of the color film process, which is completely different to that of the food industry, to bleed over to the stages of the food process? Even if there was a common step between these two procedures that could be massively improved, the processing of food may have many more additional steps that need to be improved before substantial improvements in costs and be made. Both of these points makes the argument weaker.
It was also stated in the argument that because Olympic Foods is 25 years old, that it will be expected to minimize its costs. The logic is this statement implies that any company that has many years under its belt will be guaranteed to have low operating costs in its business. We know from examples from our modern world of business that this is simply not true. Many well established businesses have huge operating costs that cannot be decreased because of the nature of the business. The airplane industry is one of these examples. It may be the case that food processing is also one of these industries, and as such, cannot have lower operating costs even if its business is many years old.
Additionally, the argument also uses vague language when describing how the costs of processing can go down. If an organization learns "how to do things better", they will become more efficient. This wording is hardly enough to pinpoint what exactly has to change in order for a business to lower its costs. Does doing things better entail lowering the cost of their fixed assets, or does it mean paying its workers less? The argument does not make it clear what factors will make a company more efficient, and consequently we can not evaluate if Olympic Foods will have these necessary factors. If the argument stated exactly what a company needed to do in order to become more efficient, that may have given more points to better evaluate Olympic Foods future performance.
In conclusion, because of the argument's poor use of logic and its use of vague languaging the argument presented is weak and not supportable.
Please rate my AWA essay below! It was my first one and I finished in the last second and didn't get the chance to proof read as thoroughly as I wanted. Let me know what I did well and what I can work on!
Many thanks,
Gray
------------------------------- Prompt -------------------------------
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 2 0 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.
------------------------------- Essay -------------------------------
The argument asserts that because Olympic foods shares the same principles of process improvements as that of color film processing that it will expect to minimize costs and maximize its profits. The number of years Olympic foods has been in business is also another factor the argument claims will help it become more efficient. Both of these points are invalid, making the argument questionable and unsubstationable.
The notion that process improvements in color film processing can be applied to food processing is a erroneous one. It is clear that the steps needed to complete a color film will be widely different than the steps needed to process food. Since this is the case, how can one expect improvements in the stages of the color film process, which is completely different to that of the food industry, to bleed over to the stages of the food process? Even if there was a common step between these two procedures that could be massively improved, the processing of food may have many more additional steps that need to be improved before substantial improvements in costs and be made. Both of these points makes the argument weaker.
It was also stated in the argument that because Olympic Foods is 25 years old, that it will be expected to minimize its costs. The logic is this statement implies that any company that has many years under its belt will be guaranteed to have low operating costs in its business. We know from examples from our modern world of business that this is simply not true. Many well established businesses have huge operating costs that cannot be decreased because of the nature of the business. The airplane industry is one of these examples. It may be the case that food processing is also one of these industries, and as such, cannot have lower operating costs even if its business is many years old.
Additionally, the argument also uses vague language when describing how the costs of processing can go down. If an organization learns "how to do things better", they will become more efficient. This wording is hardly enough to pinpoint what exactly has to change in order for a business to lower its costs. Does doing things better entail lowering the cost of their fixed assets, or does it mean paying its workers less? The argument does not make it clear what factors will make a company more efficient, and consequently we can not evaluate if Olympic Foods will have these necessary factors. If the argument stated exactly what a company needed to do in order to become more efficient, that may have given more points to better evaluate Olympic Foods future performance.
In conclusion, because of the argument's poor use of logic and its use of vague languaging the argument presented is weak and not supportable.
