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!
07 May 2022, 09:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.”
------------
MY RESPONSE
-------------
The argument is based on assumption that operating from multiple locations is the only reason for decrease in profitability. There is no strong evidence provided to support the conclusion - shutting down field offices will increase the profits. In addition to that, there is no discussion on the initial purpose of opening the field offices and are these offices meeting that purpose. These flaws are discussed below in detail with examples.
Firstly, author mentions that field offices were opened only sometime back but, he does not mention the reason for opening company offices in field locations. It is possible that management had its reasons to open these field offices, like, company wanted its employees to be more accessible to their customers or, company wanted to reduce the commute time of its employees while going for meetings with customers. By mentioning reason behind opening of field offices, the argument would look more complete and well reasoned.
Additionally, there is no evidence provided on reasons for decrease in profitability of the company. There can be many factors like, government policies, company's business decisions or market changes that adversely effect the profitability of a company. Instead, author assumes that costs of maintaining field offices and absence of top supervisors is directly affecting the profitability. Some facts/statistics around the possible reasons of decreasing trend of company's gains would help author to support his conclusion.
Finally, even if maintaining all the field offices and lack of supervision are affecting company's net profit, closing all the field offices does not sound to be an intelligent way to improve the situation. For example, if employees are not working properly in absence of supervision, then, a company should amend their parameters of hiring employees. Company should focus on hiring self-motivated or experienced employees who do not require a lot of supervision. Similarly, if company has to close a field office, all the pros and cons should be considered while making this decision and it should be a case-by-case decision instead of a generalized one.
In conclusion, the argument lacks some critical facts and reasoning that is required to come to any conclusion. By including the statistics and evidences discussed above, author would be able to present a stronger argument and a more convincing conclusion.
“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.”
------------
MY RESPONSE
-------------
The argument is based on assumption that operating from multiple locations is the only reason for decrease in profitability. There is no strong evidence provided to support the conclusion - shutting down field offices will increase the profits. In addition to that, there is no discussion on the initial purpose of opening the field offices and are these offices meeting that purpose. These flaws are discussed below in detail with examples.
Firstly, author mentions that field offices were opened only sometime back but, he does not mention the reason for opening company offices in field locations. It is possible that management had its reasons to open these field offices, like, company wanted its employees to be more accessible to their customers or, company wanted to reduce the commute time of its employees while going for meetings with customers. By mentioning reason behind opening of field offices, the argument would look more complete and well reasoned.
Additionally, there is no evidence provided on reasons for decrease in profitability of the company. There can be many factors like, government policies, company's business decisions or market changes that adversely effect the profitability of a company. Instead, author assumes that costs of maintaining field offices and absence of top supervisors is directly affecting the profitability. Some facts/statistics around the possible reasons of decreasing trend of company's gains would help author to support his conclusion.
Finally, even if maintaining all the field offices and lack of supervision are affecting company's net profit, closing all the field offices does not sound to be an intelligent way to improve the situation. For example, if employees are not working properly in absence of supervision, then, a company should amend their parameters of hiring employees. Company should focus on hiring self-motivated or experienced employees who do not require a lot of supervision. Similarly, if company has to close a field office, all the pros and cons should be considered while making this decision and it should be a case-by-case decision instead of a generalized one.
In conclusion, the argument lacks some critical facts and reasoning that is required to come to any conclusion. By including the statistics and evidences discussed above, author would be able to present a stronger argument and a more convincing conclusion.
08 May 2022, 07:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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: 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!
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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: 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!
PS: I expect you will follow the AWA subforum rules for your upcoming posts, read the rules in the post in the link below.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Good Luck
deepika257
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.”
------------
MY RESPONSE
-------------
The argument is based on assumption that operating from multiple locations is the only reason for decrease in profitability. There is no strong evidence provided to support the conclusion - shutting down field offices will increase the profits. In addition to that, there is no discussion on the initial purpose of opening the field offices and are these offices meeting that purpose. These flaws are discussed below in detail with examples.
Firstly, author mentions that field offices were opened only sometime back but, he does not mention the reason for opening company offices in field locations. It is possible that management had its reasons to open these field offices, like, company wanted its employees to be more accessible to their customers or, company wanted to reduce the commute time of its employees while going for meetings with customers. By mentioning reason behind opening of field offices, the argument would look more complete and well reasoned.
Additionally, there is no evidence provided on reasons for decrease in profitability of the company. There can be many factors like, government policies, company's business decisions or market changes that adversely effect the profitability of a company. Instead, author assumes that costs of maintaining field offices and absence of top supervisors is directly affecting the profitability. Some facts/statistics around the possible reasons of decreasing trend of company's gains would help author to support his conclusion.
Finally, even if maintaining all the field offices and lack of supervision are affecting company's net profit, closing all the field offices does not sound to be an intelligent way to improve the situation. For example, if employees are not working properly in absence of supervision, then, a company should amend their parameters of hiring employees. Company should focus on hiring self-motivated or experienced employees who do not require a lot of supervision. Similarly, if company has to close a field office, all the pros and cons should be considered while making this decision and it should be a case-by-case decision instead of a generalized one.
In conclusion, the argument lacks some critical facts and reasoning that is required to come to any conclusion. By including the statistics and evidences discussed above, author would be able to present a stronger argument and a more convincing conclusion.
“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.”
------------
MY RESPONSE
-------------
The argument is based on assumption that operating from multiple locations is the only reason for decrease in profitability. There is no strong evidence provided to support the conclusion - shutting down field offices will increase the profits. In addition to that, there is no discussion on the initial purpose of opening the field offices and are these offices meeting that purpose. These flaws are discussed below in detail with examples.
Firstly, author mentions that field offices were opened only sometime back but, he does not mention the reason for opening company offices in field locations. It is possible that management had its reasons to open these field offices, like, company wanted its employees to be more accessible to their customers or, company wanted to reduce the commute time of its employees while going for meetings with customers. By mentioning reason behind opening of field offices, the argument would look more complete and well reasoned.
Additionally, there is no evidence provided on reasons for decrease in profitability of the company. There can be many factors like, government policies, company's business decisions or market changes that adversely effect the profitability of a company. Instead, author assumes that costs of maintaining field offices and absence of top supervisors is directly affecting the profitability. Some facts/statistics around the possible reasons of decreasing trend of company's gains would help author to support his conclusion.
Finally, even if maintaining all the field offices and lack of supervision are affecting company's net profit, closing all the field offices does not sound to be an intelligent way to improve the situation. For example, if employees are not working properly in absence of supervision, then, a company should amend their parameters of hiring employees. Company should focus on hiring self-motivated or experienced employees who do not require a lot of supervision. Similarly, if company has to close a field office, all the pros and cons should be considered while making this decision and it should be a case-by-case decision instead of a generalized one.
In conclusion, the argument lacks some critical facts and reasoning that is required to come to any conclusion. By including the statistics and evidences discussed above, author would be able to present a stronger argument and a more convincing conclusion.
12 May 2022, 14:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
One quick tip: leave the word "should" out of AWAs.
You don't knooooow me; don't tell me what I shooouuuuld do.
This applies to AWAs as well as to inference critical reasoning questions. Answers that contain the word "should" are almost never correct on these questions. The reason for this might be that "should" implies that all factors have been considered prior to making the "should" suggestion, and there is rarely enough information in either a CR question or an AWA prompt to reach that threshold. Someone may want to consider something or gather more information about it, but that doesn't mean they "should" do it.
The first sentence of your "Finally" paragraph also sort of violates this concept. You passed judgment on their decision, deeming it unintelligent. But just as you cite a number of other factors that may make it a bad decision, what if there is some other factor that you haven't considered that makes it the best available option? I'd suggest avoiding judgments without qualifying words like "might" or "may" or "could."
You don't knooooow me; don't tell me what I shooouuuuld do.
This applies to AWAs as well as to inference critical reasoning questions. Answers that contain the word "should" are almost never correct on these questions. The reason for this might be that "should" implies that all factors have been considered prior to making the "should" suggestion, and there is rarely enough information in either a CR question or an AWA prompt to reach that threshold. Someone may want to consider something or gather more information about it, but that doesn't mean they "should" do it.
The first sentence of your "Finally" paragraph also sort of violates this concept. You passed judgment on their decision, deeming it unintelligent. But just as you cite a number of other factors that may make it a bad decision, what if there is some other factor that you haven't considered that makes it the best available option? I'd suggest avoiding judgments without qualifying words like "might" or "may" or "could."
