Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!
25 Sep 2021, 19:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello, it will be really helpful if you can rate my essay and give me some tips for improvement. Thank you in advance!
Prompt:
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My essay:
The argument focus on closing all the location of the Company and focus operations just in one of them. The main reason lay in the idea to be more profitable with one location by cutting costs, maintaining better supervision to employees and the fact that when the Company had only one location presented more profit than nowadays. The reasoning is flawed in several ways. It will be discuss the assumption that the only reason of a previous profit was the amount of location and not others factors, the statement that the one location must reduce costs even it must maintain the level of production and finally the general idea the supervision will be more easy in only one location.
The initial fact to sustent the argument take an event of the past, not specifying the amount of years ago and ensure it will be maintain the same. The idea to create a causal effect relationship between the number of location and the profit the Company can get is a wrong path. The reason why the Company had profit in the past can laid in aspects as less inflation, policies beneficies the Company, the less competition in the market and more others. There must be many differents explanation of the good results than the number of location. Also, even if the assumption is correct, this not necessary will maintain now because the time can change the scenary.
Considering the relationship stable, the statement that the centralization must reduce costs can be cuestionable. Although is true some tasks can be more efficient to have in one location, there are also different cost that will increase. For example, the one location must maintain the same production so it needs to be bigger enough, also the movement of the equipment of the other locations and the new employees necessary in the location. Again, there is one assumption that closing the others field location must not be costly, hard to believe because of the compensation for the employees, the movements and more.
Finally, the statement of centralization permitted a better supervision of all the employees can be discuss in different ways. If the employees of other location will be move to only one, some will need to be pay more because of the distance. But if the Company decided to fire them, the salary of the new employees can be even higher because of the new tasks and more responsabilities. Even if the salaries and employees maintain, if the one location will be more big than usual location for accomplish the amount of products, its hard to supervise more employees and in a bigger space.
Overall, the argument of the quantity of location having a positive impact in the profit the Company can get have more flaws than the ones discussing. To ensure the effect, they need to make a Deep study of the factors generating the profit in both times (before and now). Also, if there is enough reasons to only have one location, there must be an evaluation to decide which location maintain in level of profit, structure, distance, impact in clients, and more.
Prompt:
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My essay:
The argument focus on closing all the location of the Company and focus operations just in one of them. The main reason lay in the idea to be more profitable with one location by cutting costs, maintaining better supervision to employees and the fact that when the Company had only one location presented more profit than nowadays. The reasoning is flawed in several ways. It will be discuss the assumption that the only reason of a previous profit was the amount of location and not others factors, the statement that the one location must reduce costs even it must maintain the level of production and finally the general idea the supervision will be more easy in only one location.
The initial fact to sustent the argument take an event of the past, not specifying the amount of years ago and ensure it will be maintain the same. The idea to create a causal effect relationship between the number of location and the profit the Company can get is a wrong path. The reason why the Company had profit in the past can laid in aspects as less inflation, policies beneficies the Company, the less competition in the market and more others. There must be many differents explanation of the good results than the number of location. Also, even if the assumption is correct, this not necessary will maintain now because the time can change the scenary.
Considering the relationship stable, the statement that the centralization must reduce costs can be cuestionable. Although is true some tasks can be more efficient to have in one location, there are also different cost that will increase. For example, the one location must maintain the same production so it needs to be bigger enough, also the movement of the equipment of the other locations and the new employees necessary in the location. Again, there is one assumption that closing the others field location must not be costly, hard to believe because of the compensation for the employees, the movements and more.
Finally, the statement of centralization permitted a better supervision of all the employees can be discuss in different ways. If the employees of other location will be move to only one, some will need to be pay more because of the distance. But if the Company decided to fire them, the salary of the new employees can be even higher because of the new tasks and more responsabilities. Even if the salaries and employees maintain, if the one location will be more big than usual location for accomplish the amount of products, its hard to supervise more employees and in a bigger space.
Overall, the argument of the quantity of location having a positive impact in the profit the Company can get have more flaws than the ones discussing. To ensure the effect, they need to make a Deep study of the factors generating the profit in both times (before and now). Also, if there is enough reasons to only have one location, there must be an evaluation to decide which location maintain in level of profit, structure, distance, impact in clients, and more.
26 Sep 2021, 10:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
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: 4.5/5
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
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!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
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: 4.5/5
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
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
Celinej9
Hello, it will be really helpful if you can rate my essay and give me some tips for improvement. Thank you in advance!
Prompt:
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My essay:
The argument focus on closing all the location of the Company and focus operations just in one of them. The main reason lay in the idea to be more profitable with one location by cutting costs, maintaining better supervision to employees and the fact that when the Company had only one location presented more profit than nowadays. The reasoning is flawed in several ways. It will be discuss the assumption that the only reason of a previous profit was the amount of location and not others factors, the statement that the one location must reduce costs even it must maintain the level of production and finally the general idea the supervision will be more easy in only one location.
The initial fact to sustent the argument take an event of the past, not specifying the amount of years ago and ensure it will be maintain the same. The idea to create a causal effect relationship between the number of location and the profit the Company can get is a wrong path. The reason why the Company had profit in the past can laid in aspects as less inflation, policies beneficies the Company, the less competition in the market and more others. There must be many differents explanation of the good results than the number of location. Also, even if the assumption is correct, this not necessary will maintain now because the time can change the scenary.
Considering the relationship stable, the statement that the centralization must reduce costs can be cuestionable. Although is true some tasks can be more efficient to have in one location, there are also different cost that will increase. For example, the one location must maintain the same production so it needs to be bigger enough, also the movement of the equipment of the other locations and the new employees necessary in the location. Again, there is one assumption that closing the others field location must not be costly, hard to believe because of the compensation for the employees, the movements and more.
Finally, the statement of centralization permitted a better supervision of all the employees can be discuss in different ways. If the employees of other location will be move to only one, some will need to be pay more because of the distance. But if the Company decided to fire them, the salary of the new employees can be even higher because of the new tasks and more responsabilities. Even if the salaries and employees maintain, if the one location will be more big than usual location for accomplish the amount of products, its hard to supervise more employees and in a bigger space.
Overall, the argument of the quantity of location having a positive impact in the profit the Company can get have more flaws than the ones discussing. To ensure the effect, they need to make a Deep study of the factors generating the profit in both times (before and now). Also, if there is enough reasons to only have one location, there must be an evaluation to decide which location maintain in level of profit, structure, distance, impact in clients, and more.
Prompt:
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My essay:
The argument focus on closing all the location of the Company and focus operations just in one of them. The main reason lay in the idea to be more profitable with one location by cutting costs, maintaining better supervision to employees and the fact that when the Company had only one location presented more profit than nowadays. The reasoning is flawed in several ways. It will be discuss the assumption that the only reason of a previous profit was the amount of location and not others factors, the statement that the one location must reduce costs even it must maintain the level of production and finally the general idea the supervision will be more easy in only one location.
The initial fact to sustent the argument take an event of the past, not specifying the amount of years ago and ensure it will be maintain the same. The idea to create a causal effect relationship between the number of location and the profit the Company can get is a wrong path. The reason why the Company had profit in the past can laid in aspects as less inflation, policies beneficies the Company, the less competition in the market and more others. There must be many differents explanation of the good results than the number of location. Also, even if the assumption is correct, this not necessary will maintain now because the time can change the scenary.
Considering the relationship stable, the statement that the centralization must reduce costs can be cuestionable. Although is true some tasks can be more efficient to have in one location, there are also different cost that will increase. For example, the one location must maintain the same production so it needs to be bigger enough, also the movement of the equipment of the other locations and the new employees necessary in the location. Again, there is one assumption that closing the others field location must not be costly, hard to believe because of the compensation for the employees, the movements and more.
Finally, the statement of centralization permitted a better supervision of all the employees can be discuss in different ways. If the employees of other location will be move to only one, some will need to be pay more because of the distance. But if the Company decided to fire them, the salary of the new employees can be even higher because of the new tasks and more responsabilities. Even if the salaries and employees maintain, if the one location will be more big than usual location for accomplish the amount of products, its hard to supervise more employees and in a bigger space.
Overall, the argument of the quantity of location having a positive impact in the profit the Company can get have more flaws than the ones discussing. To ensure the effect, they need to make a Deep study of the factors generating the profit in both times (before and now). Also, if there is enough reasons to only have one location, there must be an evaluation to decide which location maintain in level of profit, structure, distance, impact in clients, and more.
29 Sep 2021, 09:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Would you mind having a look at mine too please? Its my 2nd AWA attempt 
!
The argument presented by the Apogee Company, despite being in theory correct, lacks information that could strengthen the argument to make it consider. The idea that their decentralization was the cause of their reduced profit has an ocean of possible causes. Their proposal to go back to one central venue to operate has the following flaws:
Without a balance sheet or any other proof to compare profitability from years before opening more venues vs a single one is not provided, therefore it is not a valid argument to take, several questions would need to be answered in order to understand whats the biggest gap and if it correlates to the multiple venues, for example, what is the number of employees and related increased costs that the expansion incurred? Can the new venues sustain themselves or are they biting on other venues profits? How many more venues do they have and what are all the new costs?
The proposal to close down all of the filed venues has some serious implications that need to be considered, as there is no information about them, this is just an assumption of what needs to be done. This will require some answers for the following questions to better understand the ramifications, Are all the field staff expected to work from the central office now? Is there enough office space to hold the extra staff? If not, what infrastructure modifications are needed and how much would they cost? If there´s limit office capacity, what would happen to the extra staff? Will they be let go with economical compensations? Can the Apogee Company really aford this now?
The third key flaw in the argument is the idea that the single operating point will help cutting costs, there are no supporting argument that show what exactly where are the costs they are trying to cut down, is it by using lower quality materials? Having less staff? Paying less rent? Lowering salaries?, more clarification is needed on what exactly are the costs that will be impacted.
The last flaw refers to increased supervision as something that will impact profitability, without any supporting studies that the actual profit decline is somehow correlated to the way the staff do their work this statement is just an assumption. An evaluation of staff appraisals per venue compared to profitability would be needed to understand this better and if there are any other factors like where the venue is located, the economical capacity of the area and current economy.
While on the surface this argument might sounds like a good solution to increase profitability, without the answers to the questions mentioned above, the argument lacks solid proof to consider it true.
!The argument presented by the Apogee Company, despite being in theory correct, lacks information that could strengthen the argument to make it consider. The idea that their decentralization was the cause of their reduced profit has an ocean of possible causes. Their proposal to go back to one central venue to operate has the following flaws:
Without a balance sheet or any other proof to compare profitability from years before opening more venues vs a single one is not provided, therefore it is not a valid argument to take, several questions would need to be answered in order to understand whats the biggest gap and if it correlates to the multiple venues, for example, what is the number of employees and related increased costs that the expansion incurred? Can the new venues sustain themselves or are they biting on other venues profits? How many more venues do they have and what are all the new costs?
The proposal to close down all of the filed venues has some serious implications that need to be considered, as there is no information about them, this is just an assumption of what needs to be done. This will require some answers for the following questions to better understand the ramifications, Are all the field staff expected to work from the central office now? Is there enough office space to hold the extra staff? If not, what infrastructure modifications are needed and how much would they cost? If there´s limit office capacity, what would happen to the extra staff? Will they be let go with economical compensations? Can the Apogee Company really aford this now?
The third key flaw in the argument is the idea that the single operating point will help cutting costs, there are no supporting argument that show what exactly where are the costs they are trying to cut down, is it by using lower quality materials? Having less staff? Paying less rent? Lowering salaries?, more clarification is needed on what exactly are the costs that will be impacted.
The last flaw refers to increased supervision as something that will impact profitability, without any supporting studies that the actual profit decline is somehow correlated to the way the staff do their work this statement is just an assumption. An evaluation of staff appraisals per venue compared to profitability would be needed to understand this better and if there are any other factors like where the venue is located, the economical capacity of the area and current economy.
While on the surface this argument might sounds like a good solution to increase profitability, without the answers to the questions mentioned above, the argument lacks solid proof to consider it true.
