新GMAT黄金范文

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.”

下面摘自一家冷冻食品处理商（processor）奥林匹克食品提交给股东的年报：随着时间流逝，由于机构了解了做好事情的方法进而提高了效率，处理的成本会降低。比如在彩色胶卷处理方面，3/5英寸照片的成本从1970年的5天50cent降至1984年的1天20cent。同样的规律适用于食品处理方面。由于奥林匹克食品即将庆祝它的25岁生日，我们可以指望我们长期的经验会使我们达到小的成本和大的利润。

1. false analogy: The food industry is not analogous to the color film industry.

2. causal oversimplification: Other factors that may contribute t to the cost decline of the printing cost should be considered and ruled out.

3. gratuitous assumption: The conclusion of the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that the company can minimize cost and maximize profit because the company has been conducted for 25 years.

1. 错误类比：color film processing和processing of food不相同。problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation都只影响food 不影响film.

2. 同时，忽略他因。是否是因为组织更有效率才使COST下降的？很可能是material necessary for the process下降了价钱。所以，两者更不同。

3. gratuitous assumption：二十五年不代表学到了很多。很可能什么都没学到，或者技术已经out of date.

Citing facts drawn from the color-film processing industry that indicate a downward trend in the costs of film processing over a 24-year period, the author argues that Olympic Foods will likewise be able to minimize costs and thus maximize profits in the future. In support of this conclusion the author cites the general principle that “as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient.” This principle, coupled with the fact that Olympic Foods has had 25 years of experience in the food processing industry leads to the author’s rosy prediction. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from two critical flaws.

First, the author’s forecast of minimal costs and maximum profits rests on the gratuitous assumption that Olympic Foods’ “long experience” has taught it how to do things better. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Just as likely, Olympic Foods has learned nothing from its 25 years in the food-processing business. Lacking this assumption, the expectation of increased efficiency is entirely unfounded.

Second, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from the color-film processing industry are applicable to the food processing industry. Differences between the two industries clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect the food industry but are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. Problems such as these might present insurmountable 不可抗拒的obstacles that prevent lowering food-processing costs in the future.

As it stands the author’s argument is not compelling. To strengthen the conclusion that Olympic Foods will enjoy minimal costs and maximum profits in the future, the author would have to provide evidence that the company has learned how to do things better as a result of its 25 years of experience. Supporting examples drawn from industries more similar to the food-processing industry would further substantiate证实 the author’s view.

2. 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 (n. 外地办事处) 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.”

下面摘自APogee公司的商务部门的备忘录：

当Apogee将它所有的业务部门集中在一处时，它将有比现在更多的利润。因此，Apogee应该关闭它的驻外办公室并从单一场所管理它的所有部门。这样的话，集中会通过削减成本提高利润，并帮助公司更好地对所有员工进行监督。

1. causal oversimplification: It is imprudent to conclude that the establishment of the field offices is the only reason explaining the decline of the profit.

2. all things are equal: The success of the centralization of the past does not guarantee the applicability in the future.

3. either-or-or choice: The author assumes that the centralization and the establishment of field offices are mutually exclusive alternatives, there is no middle ground between they two. In fact, we can have the field offices under centralized control.

In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.

First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.

Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帐本底线) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy 肥大的buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first.

In conclusion,