GRE Argument Topic 72

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 107, 109 and 110 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

Food is perishable. It must be stored at correct temperatures and humidity. Even when those conditions are managed correctly, pests are still a threat. Some may arrive with the food from its country of origin, while others invade at its arrival point. This company has hired two companies to control the pests at its warehouses, and, according to the manager, one has been more successful than the other. Before the owners of the company take the suggestion to return all of the pest control to Buzzoff, they need more evidence of Fly Away's inability to keep their products free from pests.

First, the owners should know what prompted the switch to Fly Away. There might be evidence that Buzzoff had not been as successful in Palm City as they had been in previous years or in the company's other locations. Buzzoff may have been too busy to continue servicing the Palm City warehouse and may not even be able to do so if asked in the future. On the other hand, Fly Away may have approached the food company and made promises that they could not keep. If that is the case, the company is justified in returning to Buzzoff.

Some foods are more susceptible to invasions of pests. The strength of the recommendation may rest on knowing the types of food at each location. Palm City stores fast food, but the argument does not reveal what type of fast food. In fact, if this warehouse provides storage for ground beef, temperature, rather than pests would be the likely culprit for spoilage. Fly Away may have been effective in eliminating pests, but a refrigeration problem would cause the bacteria already present in ground meat to cause its breakdown. The warehouse in Palm City may have some structural damage that could allow pests like rats or raccoons to get into the building and feast on the product within. Fly Away may not have been instructed to poison or trap these critters. The warehouse in Wintervale may store frozen food exclusively, so pests are not a big problem. The $10,000 loss could have resulted from a malfunction in a unit or even an issue with a delivery truck. On the other hand, both warehouses may be perfectly maintained, store the same type of food, and Fly Away did an inferior job at pest control in Palm City. It would be important to know how much food is stored at each warehouse. The argument provides the dollar amount of loss at each location, but not the percentage of total inventory lost to pests. It appears that the $10,000 loss in Wintervale is not as alarming as the $20,000 loss in Palm City. If, however, the Palm City warehouse stores $200,000 worth of product, and the Wintervale warehouse stores $100,000 worth of product, the percentage of loss is the same. Companies that deal with perishable merchandise usually have some level of acceptable loss, but that information is not present in the argument. In fact, they may have had bigger losses last year. This year's loss to pests might be average.

Environmental anomalies could account for Fly Away's apparent failure to protect the food stored in the Palm City warehouse. Temperatures may have been much higher or lower than usual. There may have been significantly more rain or humidity. Some insect populations are cyclical. Fly Away may have contracted to do the job for a specific price that was suitable for average conditions. If the conditions were extraordinary in some way, any company would have found it difficult or impossible to prevent the loss. Additionally, conditions in Wintervale may have been more favorable than normal, helping to make the loss there significantly smaller.

The loss of product in either or both warehouses may have been beyond the company's control regardless of which pest service it used. The pest problem may have originated with the company's suppliers. The vice president doesn't reveal if he or one of his managers decided to buy product from a new supplier. If the loss to pests this year is unacceptable, the company needs clearer evidence that Fly Away rather than some other contingency is the cause. It may turn out that Fly Away is an excellent choice for pest control, and the easiest way to save money is to use them for all the company's warehouses.

Sample 2:

The food- distribution company, as mentioned above, is associated with food storage warehouses in several cities. Recently it signed a contract for the pest-control services with Fly-Away-Pest-Control Company, thereby ending its contract with Buzzoff Pest-Control Company in some of the cities, after a year. The memo from the vice president of the food-distribution company, lays emphasis on returning to Buzzoff Pest-Control Company for its services in all the cities. This is based on the comparison between the losses incurred by the two pest control companies in terms of food destroyed by pest damage. In the first glance, this claim in the memo appears to be quite logical as the services of the company which is causing more monetary loss must be immediately terminated.

However, the rising competition with the nearby markets may not be entirely based on the organic value of the food available there. There seems to be no proof in support of the above mentioned assumption. It is quite possible that these food products are becoming popular due to their better quality or may be better taste. There is a fair possibility of better advertisement for these newly launched organic food products. The memorandum has not considered the role of media in giving hype to the organic content of these products. Correspondingly, the need of the hour may be met by better advertisements through various media channels.

Damage of food worth $ 20000 by The Fly -Away Pest-Control Company in Palm City can be due to bad weather conditions. The climatic conditions in both Palm City and Wintervale, must be compared. More damage in Palm City may have resulted due to the lack of adequate facilities or congenial environment provided by the food distribution company. One can not even rule out the likelihood of less efficient or inexperienced staff employed by the food distribution company itself. Consequently, the decision on continuation or termination of contract with Fly-Away Pest Control Company should be based on its performance in all the associated cities, and not just a single city.

Last but not the least, there must have been some factors responsible for transferring the contract from Buzzoff Pest-Control Company to Fly-Away Pest-Control Company, when the services of the former were received for many years. Those factors must have had a ground and therefore should not be ignored. For instance, the cost shared by both of the pest control services must be analyzed in detail. Since The Fly-Away-Pest-Control Company charges much less as compared to Buzzoff Pest-Control Company, separate records of the likely expenditure by both the companies should be evaluated side by side. This will give a true picture of the more profitable company, in the long run.

In other words, faith should be expressed and more time should be given to analyze the overall performance of Fly-Away-Pest-Control Company. Proceeding otherwise may harm the reputation of the food-distribution company, as switching from one company to another and back to the previous one seems to be an impulsive, immature and unethical action. Thus, the argument given in the memo proves to be quite unconvincing, owing to the various above mentioned aspects being ignored.