|
|
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.
19 Jun 2019, 23:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organization 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 5-day service in 1970 to 20 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.”
The argument claims that since Olympic Foods will celebrate its 25th Birthday, their long experience will help them in minimizing cost and maximizing profits. This conclusion is based on the premise that with time the organizations learn how to do things better and become efficient at it. To support his claim the author gives the example of color film processing industry. Stated in this way the argument fails to consider several key factors based on which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Conspicuously the argument assumes that since color film processing organization was able to reduce cost, food processing organization will also be able to do so. This statement is a stretch because we don’t know how the color film industry was able to reduce the cost. It might be possible that the cost of its raw material i.e. the film reduced significantly. On the other hand, the cost of raw material for the food processing industry might not have reduced. Also, the storage of food for long period of time can degrade its quality and push up the costs, in contrast degradation of film due to storage won’t increase cost significantly. The argument could have been much better if it had considered other factors while it implied reduction of cost.
Furthermore, the argument fails to explain how the efficiency of color film processing organization improved. For example, the color film industry might have become more efficient because of availability of new technology to improve the quality of films which helps to reduce the development time. However, there might not have been any such technological advancement in the food processing industry. If the argument had provided evidence that the increase in efficiency was because of factors like improved technology, better management strategy or increase in employee productivity, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Irrevocably the argument concludes that minimizing cost will lead to increase in profits. The argument fails to consider that though costs have been minimized in one department, they might have increased in another department and overall the company might be in a loss. The author should have explicitly mentioned where was the cost minimized and where was the profit reflected. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions all the relevant facts. Without this the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The argument claims that since Olympic Foods will celebrate its 25th Birthday, their long experience will help them in minimizing cost and maximizing profits. This conclusion is based on the premise that with time the organizations learn how to do things better and become efficient at it. To support his claim the author gives the example of color film processing industry. Stated in this way the argument fails to consider several key factors based on which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Conspicuously the argument assumes that since color film processing organization was able to reduce cost, food processing organization will also be able to do so. This statement is a stretch because we don’t know how the color film industry was able to reduce the cost. It might be possible that the cost of its raw material i.e. the film reduced significantly. On the other hand, the cost of raw material for the food processing industry might not have reduced. Also, the storage of food for long period of time can degrade its quality and push up the costs, in contrast degradation of film due to storage won’t increase cost significantly. The argument could have been much better if it had considered other factors while it implied reduction of cost.
Furthermore, the argument fails to explain how the efficiency of color film processing organization improved. For example, the color film industry might have become more efficient because of availability of new technology to improve the quality of films which helps to reduce the development time. However, there might not have been any such technological advancement in the food processing industry. If the argument had provided evidence that the increase in efficiency was because of factors like improved technology, better management strategy or increase in employee productivity, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Irrevocably the argument concludes that minimizing cost will lead to increase in profits. The argument fails to consider that though costs have been minimized in one department, they might have increased in another department and overall the company might be in a loss. The author should have explicitly mentioned where was the cost minimized and where was the profit reflected. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions all the relevant facts. Without this the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderator:
