I am preparing for GMAt and IELTS both at once. I'm using GMAT's sample questions to practice analytical writing which I assume would be similar. Here are the qustions and my response, any advice or critisism is welcomed! Thank you.
Question
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods. "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 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 twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
My Response
The argument that Olympic Foods will be able to do things in a way that reduces cost and improves profit margin omits several important details to justify the argument. The statement asserts that the cost reduction for film processing is a result of having more experience and that having a long experience in food processing will lead to a lower cost and a bigger margin. Such statement alone does not constitute a logical argument to predict a growth in margin, and it certainly does not sufficient proof to support the prediction.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the other factors that could lead to cost reduction for film processing, the relationship between film processing and food processing, and the other factors that may affect profit margin. First, other factors, especially technological advancement, is also very likely be a contributor to a reduced cost. If a long experience is not the main contributor to a reduced cost, then the having a long experience in food processing does not imply cost reduction either. Second, film processing and food processing are two much different industries, and what holds true for one does not necessary hold true for the other. Without demonstrating the similarities between the two, it is hardly convincing to relate one to the other. Finally, many factors contribute to profit margin aside from cost, including selling price and other expenses that are not directly related to food processing. It is often the case that as the necessary technique and technology mature, competition grows fierce and selling price drops. Therefore, a reduced cost alone does far from suggesting a wider profit margin without taking all of the deciding factors into consideration.
Given that the argument has failed to factor in several key elements discussed above, the argument is hardly sound or persuasive. If it considered all deciding factors that can affect cost and profit margin, the argument would have been more convincing.
Frozen foods - costs and profits
Question
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods. "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 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 twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
My Response
The argument that Olympic Foods will be able to do things in a way that reduces cost and improves profit margin omits several important details to justify the argument. The statement asserts that the cost reduction for film processing is a result of having more experience and that having a long experience in food processing will lead to a lower cost and a bigger margin. Such statement alone does not constitute a logical argument to predict a growth in margin, and it certainly does not sufficient proof to support the prediction.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the other factors that could lead to cost reduction for film processing, the relationship between film processing and food processing, and the other factors that may affect profit margin. First, other factors, especially technological advancement, is also very likely be a contributor to a reduced cost. If a long experience is not the main contributor to a reduced cost, then the having a long experience in food processing does not imply cost reduction either. Second, film processing and food processing are two much different industries, and what holds true for one does not necessary hold true for the other. Without demonstrating the similarities between the two, it is hardly convincing to relate one to the other. Finally, many factors contribute to profit margin aside from cost, including selling price and other expenses that are not directly related to food processing. It is often the case that as the necessary technique and technology mature, competition grows fierce and selling price drops. Therefore, a reduced cost alone does far from suggesting a wider profit margin without taking all of the deciding factors into consideration.
Given that the argument has failed to factor in several key elements discussed above, the argument is hardly sound or persuasive. If it considered all deciding factors that can affect cost and profit margin, the argument would have been more convincing.
