Hi guys,
This is my first post in here. My GMAT exam is 2 weeks again from now and now i'm practicing my GMAT essays.
It is quite hard for me because i am not a native speaker of English and i hope by practicing, it can increase my essay score.
Please for all of you, if you have any time, rate my essay here and give some comments about it.
Thank you all
Argument :
""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."
Analysis of the Argument :
The argument that the costs of processing go down because as organizations become more efficient omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows this argument simply describes the absolute amount and how much the costs decreases. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the efficient process and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the quality of the product, the money value, and new technology during the period. First, in the example shown above, there is no statement about the quality of products. The statement does not address whether the quality of product is still the same or might be decreasing. The process will be said efficient if the quality is the same with the lower costs. But from the example, it might be doubted whether the quality is still the same because the five-day services is decrease to only one-day services. There might be something that cut down in this process that might lowering the quality.
Second, the costs tend to be lower because as the time goes on, the money value will be inflated thus it will make the absolute amount of money will be lower in the future. Let's say in 1970 with 50 cents, we can buy 5 books but in 1984 that 50 cents may only buy us 1 book. Hence, 50 cents in 1970 may be inflated to only 10 cents in 1984. Therefore the cost for processing color film 20 cents in 1984 can't be said more efficient instead the cost is higher than that of in 1970.
Third, the argument waives any kind of new technology which may be implemented during 1970 until 1984. If new technology applies here, the costs for each color film will be lower. It can be said the process is more efficient if we have calculated the costs for this new technology and the costs is not pamper up the costs for each color film. But if in this argument, it ignores the costs of new technology which may have been applied, the argument is not sound anymore.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or convincing. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining how much the costs decrease, the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.
-Mesti-
This is my first post in here. My GMAT exam is 2 weeks again from now and now i'm practicing my GMAT essays.
It is quite hard for me because i am not a native speaker of English and i hope by practicing, it can increase my essay score.
Please for all of you, if you have any time, rate my essay here and give some comments about it.
Thank you all
Argument :
""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."
Analysis of the Argument :
The argument that the costs of processing go down because as organizations become more efficient omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows this argument simply describes the absolute amount and how much the costs decreases. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the efficient process and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the quality of the product, the money value, and new technology during the period. First, in the example shown above, there is no statement about the quality of products. The statement does not address whether the quality of product is still the same or might be decreasing. The process will be said efficient if the quality is the same with the lower costs. But from the example, it might be doubted whether the quality is still the same because the five-day services is decrease to only one-day services. There might be something that cut down in this process that might lowering the quality.
Second, the costs tend to be lower because as the time goes on, the money value will be inflated thus it will make the absolute amount of money will be lower in the future. Let's say in 1970 with 50 cents, we can buy 5 books but in 1984 that 50 cents may only buy us 1 book. Hence, 50 cents in 1970 may be inflated to only 10 cents in 1984. Therefore the cost for processing color film 20 cents in 1984 can't be said more efficient instead the cost is higher than that of in 1970.
Third, the argument waives any kind of new technology which may be implemented during 1970 until 1984. If new technology applies here, the costs for each color film will be lower. It can be said the process is more efficient if we have calculated the costs for this new technology and the costs is not pamper up the costs for each color film. But if in this argument, it ignores the costs of new technology which may have been applied, the argument is not sound anymore.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or convincing. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining how much the costs decrease, the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.
-Mesti-
