Hi there, I have just started my self-study for GMAT for 2 weeks. Therefore, it's hard for me to judge and evaluate my own piece of writing. I would love to hear your comments and advices on it. Thanks again. <i class="em em-blush"></i><i class="em em-blush">
The topic is taken from the OG 2018, AWA section, p.809.
Here is my response:
The passage does not efficiently report the decrease of processing cost to the stockholders of Olympic Foods. With a subtle statics of price and the anniversary reminder, the author misses numbers of considerations that are needed to make the report more convincing.
The seemingly most obvious flaw in the passage lays in the erroneous example. Comparing 50 dollars for 5-day service, which equals to 10 dollar each day, with 20 dollars for a 1-day service not only offenses the idea of price decreasing but in fact proves the other wise. The comparison itself is inappropriate since film processing cannot be taken into consideration with food processing. The materials and techniques required for the two industries vary significantly; therefore, the development film processing has does not guarantee the same development for the food processing. Another false assumption is shown when a long experience ismentioned as a base for future prosper. What if the company lasts for a long time but has gained no vital lessons, updating techniques, and skilled employees?
Along with these flaws, the passage doesnot fully explain the method of improving their performances as well as giving some evidences of their efficient work. Missing these crucial factors makes the report less convincing and trust-worthy.
In order to present as a more successful report, the passage had better have those flaws mentioned fixed and further explanations and evidences provided.
The topic is taken from the OG 2018, AWA section, p.809.
Here is my response:
The passage does not efficiently report the decrease of processing cost to the stockholders of Olympic Foods. With a subtle statics of price and the anniversary reminder, the author misses numbers of considerations that are needed to make the report more convincing.
The seemingly most obvious flaw in the passage lays in the erroneous example. Comparing 50 dollars for 5-day service, which equals to 10 dollar each day, with 20 dollars for a 1-day service not only offenses the idea of price decreasing but in fact proves the other wise. The comparison itself is inappropriate since film processing cannot be taken into consideration with food processing. The materials and techniques required for the two industries vary significantly; therefore, the development film processing has does not guarantee the same development for the food processing. Another false assumption is shown when a long experience ismentioned as a base for future prosper. What if the company lasts for a long time but has gained no vital lessons, updating techniques, and skilled employees?
Along with these flaws, the passage doesnot fully explain the method of improving their performances as well as giving some evidences of their efficient work. Missing these crucial factors makes the report less convincing and trust-worthy.
In order to present as a more successful report, the passage had better have those flaws mentioned fixed and further explanations and evidences provided.
