GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:

"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The author concludes that the company move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department. The author's line of reasoning is that the manager that handles the purchasing of metals lacks sufficient knowledge about the properties of metals and this lack of knowledge causes poor planning in purchasing metals, and loss in revenues. The argument is problematic for various reasons.

First of all, the author's reasoning seems to rely on a casual connection between lack of sufficient knowledge of the properties of metals and poor planning in purchasing metals. The reasoning would have been more convincing if the report highlighted some of poor decisions taken by the purchasing manager. One possible alternate assumption is that the delays in manufacturing were caused because there was a huge between demand and supply of metals.
Secondly the author assumes that the purchasing manager's excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology does little to help him on purchasing decisions. Again, however there is no reasoning to support this assumption. On the contrary, purchasing decisions are considered logistical functions and in depth knowledge about the product is rarely required by the people working in sales or purchase departments.

Finally, the author fails to consider whether a scientist alone will be able to handle the purchasing department. There is no doubt that the scientist's knowledge on the properties of metals would be much more than the purchasing manager's knowledge but the scientist may lack sufficient negotiation and planning skills, which are extremely handy when it comes to buying decisions. Because the author's argument fails to identify how a scientist would handle such management decisions, it is impossible to assess the persuasiveness of the argument.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. The author needs to provide solid evidence to support his conclusion that a scientist will be able to identify the gaps in poor planning decisions. Additionally the author needs to draw some stats to conclude that the purchasing manager's lack of knowledge about the properties of metals is the real cause behind the delays in manufacturing. Without this additional information, the argument lacks several key issues that could make the argument more thorough and convincing.