AWA p.78 (照片&食品)

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 20cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifty birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.

In this part of an annual report, the author concludes that organizations become more efficient as they learn how to do things better to make the costs of processing go down. As a result, Olympic Foods will minimize costs and thus maximize profits because of its long experience in the food-processing industry. In support of this conclusion, he refers to color film processing where the cost of a 3-by-5 inch print fell from 50 cents for a five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for a one-day service in 1984. However, I do not think the argument is logically convincing because some of the assumptions on which its recommendation rests are highly questionable. Here are some reasons why.
First of all, frozen food production and the color-film processing industry are different industries. Different industries have different industry-specific processes. For example, in the processing of frozen foods, the costs of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect total cost but they are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. Evidently, comparing Olympic foods and the color-film processing industry is a faulty analogy.
In addition, the author presumptuously links long experience to minimal costs and maximum profits. There is no guarantee that this is the case. Some large corporations with long histories are now confronted with low efficiency chiefly because they have developed excessive hierarchy in the organizational structure. For example, the Apogee company, with a history of more than twenty-five years, begins to reduce the layers of management among their structure to improve its efficiency. Furthermore, the author fails to take into account possible alternative explanations for reducing costs. Many other factors such as economic trends, a well-functioning cost control system, a good relationship with suppliers, and well-designed procedures could cause the same result. That is, all factors may cause change to cost and profit. Undoubtedly, it is an oversimplification to reduce all factors affecting company costs to one single factor: long experience.
To sum up, there are several factors in cost saving. Even if Olympic Foods has long experience in the food processing industry, the company cannot reduce its cost unless it can improve other factors relating to the cost of processing. Moreover, the author cannot compare the different cost behaviors. Obviously, faulty analogy and oversimplification make the argument unsound.

GMAT-AWA argument No.11 (p.86)

At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. The author of this editorial concludes that the residents of San Perdito would be provided with better municipal services is they voted Montoya our of office and reelected Varro. This conclusion is based on the limited comparison of the increase or decrease of the population and the unemployment rate of the city of San Perdito. Evidently, oversimplification and a post hoc fallacy make the argument invalid.
First of all, because the argument leaves out several key factors, it is not sound or persuasive. The author mentioned that Montoya's term had only negative impacts on the city of San Perdito, neglecting possible positive ones. In the first four years, for instance, the city's crime rate might have declined, pollution problems might have improved, and quality of education might have gotten better. All the circumstances mentioned above should be evaluated as well. However, the author mentions only the population loss and the unemployment rate of San Perdito to evaluate the two mayors' performances. He excluded other important indicators on which the residents of San Perdito might place more emphasis.
In addition, a post hoc fallacy makes the argument invalid. The author assumes that because one event follows another in time, the first event caused the second. In other words, he mistakes a temporal connection for a causal connection. The fact that the population decreased and the unemployment rate increased after Montoya was elected to be the mayor of San Perdito city may be a matter of coincidence, not cause and effect. The author unfairly assumes that the economic and environmental conditions during Montoya's term in office are the same as those during Varro's term. However, the assumption is questionable because the author does not provide hard evidence to prove that only the Montoya administration caused these problems. Furthermore, some factors would likely affect the city economy. For example, a statewide or worldwide recession may have caused and increase in the unemployment rate. Besides, business closure does not directly denote that mayor Montoya had some flaws in his municipal policies. Perhaps the businesses had their own thorny or insurmountable problems contributing to the failures.
In conclusion, the author oversimplifies the argument by reducing all factors affecting the economy of San Perdito to the Montoya administration. Therefore, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to consider all other possible factors that affect the city economy and other significant indicators to evaluate the performance of the mayors.

GMAT-AWA argument(Owning a Car)

Should a person own a car? This is an important question. In a large urban area, there are some good reasons for owning a car. First, a car allows a person to move around freely. With a car, there is no need to check a bus schedule or wait for a train. Second, a car is a comfortable way to travel, especially in the wintertime. In bad weather, the driver stays warm and dry, while the poor bus or train rider might have to stand in the rain. Finally, a driver is usually safe in a car at night. The rider might need to walk down a dark street to get to a stop, or wait on a dark corner.
There are, on the other hand, many good reasons against owning a car. First, it can be very expensive. The price of fuel continues to rise and car insurance can cost three or four hundred dollars a year. In addition, it is expensive to maintain and repair a car. A simple tune-up can cost$50. In an urban area, it might also be expensive to park the car. Second, owning a car can cause worry and stress. It is exhausting to drive in rush-hour traffic, or to drive around and around looking for a parking space. If you leave your car on the street., it might get stolen. That is something else to worry about. Finally, everyone needs to think about pollution and energy problems. Air pollution and noise pollution increase as more and more people drive cards. More and more cars also burn more and more fuel. At present, drivers may have to wait in long lines at filling stations in order to buy a couple of gallons of gasoline.
Should a person in an urban area own a car? In order to answer the question, a person must weigh both sides. On the one hand, there is freedom of movement, comfort, and safety. On the other hand, there is expense, worry, and concern for the quality of life. For many people in large cities, the reasons against owning a car outweigh the reasons for owning a car. Therefore, the answer is negative: a person in an urban area should not own a car.