-
bhopalkararpit
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:50 am
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 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 )
The aforementioned argument, in asserting that the centralization of the company would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees, appears at first glance to be coherent and a fairly convincing argument. However, upon further investigation of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident. Amongst the most pivotal shortcomings of the argument is in its inability to address or even acknowledge its assumption as well as negligence of the information necessary to substantiate its claims.
The Primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises, where he concedes that - when the company had its operation from a single location , it generated more profits than when it had several other field branches. But the author has not clearly mentioned whether the field offices were given sufficient time to generate profits to the company, as when the company expands itself it goes through initial lump but may heavily profit when the offices get settled and their customers
base gets increased. Also the Author has failed to mention, whether the state of the business atmosphere that prevailed at the time of the so called less profit to the company and at the time of more profit to the company was same. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In Addition, the Author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. He assumes that the market condition at the time of Survey of the profits to the company, when it had multiple field offices and when it worked from a single base, were same. If the company , working with multiple fiend office produce profits, inspite of the recession, then the company better keep it working with the field offices ,because when the recession period subsides the company ought to increase the profits in a better way. Author also wrongly
assumes that cutting costs and closing offices would help the company to work in a much better way and generate profits, perhaps only cutting costs don't ensure the increase of profits to the company.
While the Author does have key issues with the premise and Assumption of his argument, this is not to say that the whole argument is without any base. Though there are several issues, with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification could strengthen his argument. For example-if Author produces any account of similar instance of another Company,necessarily of identical field and similar working conditions, which generated profit when reduced to single base office, than working with multiple field bases, can put his argument in a much better position.
In sum, the Author's illogical argument is based on unsupported evidence and unsubstantiated assumptions. If author truly hopes to change his readers' mind on this issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, explicate his assumption and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"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 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 )
The aforementioned argument, in asserting that the centralization of the company would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees, appears at first glance to be coherent and a fairly convincing argument. However, upon further investigation of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident. Amongst the most pivotal shortcomings of the argument is in its inability to address or even acknowledge its assumption as well as negligence of the information necessary to substantiate its claims.
The Primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises, where he concedes that - when the company had its operation from a single location , it generated more profits than when it had several other field branches. But the author has not clearly mentioned whether the field offices were given sufficient time to generate profits to the company, as when the company expands itself it goes through initial lump but may heavily profit when the offices get settled and their customers
base gets increased. Also the Author has failed to mention, whether the state of the business atmosphere that prevailed at the time of the so called less profit to the company and at the time of more profit to the company was same. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In Addition, the Author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. He assumes that the market condition at the time of Survey of the profits to the company, when it had multiple field offices and when it worked from a single base, were same. If the company , working with multiple fiend office produce profits, inspite of the recession, then the company better keep it working with the field offices ,because when the recession period subsides the company ought to increase the profits in a better way. Author also wrongly
assumes that cutting costs and closing offices would help the company to work in a much better way and generate profits, perhaps only cutting costs don't ensure the increase of profits to the company.
While the Author does have key issues with the premise and Assumption of his argument, this is not to say that the whole argument is without any base. Though there are several issues, with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification could strengthen his argument. For example-if Author produces any account of similar instance of another Company,necessarily of identical field and similar working conditions, which generated profit when reduced to single base office, than working with multiple field bases, can put his argument in a much better position.
In sum, the Author's illogical argument is based on unsupported evidence and unsubstantiated assumptions. If author truly hopes to change his readers' mind on this issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, explicate his assumption and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
