GMAT Essays (AWA)

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 and conduct all of its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."

Discuss how well reasoned...etc.

The issue of profitability is as timely as ever. Recently, a memorandum from the business department of Apogee Company stated when the organization had all of its operations in one location, the company was more profitable that it is today. Regarding the issue, the author claims the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct its operations from a single location because it would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Though the claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evident the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary reason for the author's unsubstantiated claim is a lack of evidence. The author concludes that the Apogee Company should close its field offices and conduct operation from a central location to improve profitability. However, the author provides no evidence or additional information on how this decision affects the company's profitability. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

The author makes several assumptions that remain unproved. The author assumes that costs will be cut by operating from one location. The author does not consider or provide evidence of the increase in cost for employees having to travel to field locations to perform their job duties. Similarly, the author assumes that because all employees are going to be under supervision, the profit costs will increase as a result of productivity. The author does not provide any information regarding employee morale, which drives employee productivity. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between closing field locations and increased profitability he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his arguments premises and assumptions, the argument is not without base. The author can strengthen the argument by providing supporting evidence on how the centralized location will increase profitability. The author should provide the financial data for the new travel expenses that company will incur, closing the field locations and operating from a single location. The author should also survey employees to determine if this decision will affect employee morale for the company. Though there are many issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author could improve his argument significantly.

In summation, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The argument is not persuasive and convincing as it stands. If the author truly hopes to change the reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely reconstruct his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.