AWA Question:
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 maintains better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:-
The prompt argument is severely flawed for a number of reasons. Primary amongst them is underlying assumption that the reduction in profits of Apogee company is due to the increase in it's operational locations. The argument goes on to claim that centralisation of the operations will result in cost cutting, not taking into account the possibility that multiple locations might be imperative for the proper functioning of the business.
The premise that the business could continue to be profitable while operating only from one location fails to account for multiple scenarios.
One, the nature of the business might need it to be operational in multiple locations. Second, it is possible that the falling profits are because of macro economic conditions rather than reasons pertinent to just Apogee Company's operations. Thirdly, it is also possible that some other reason such as initial capital expenditure has led to a reduction in profits.
Further, in the assumption that centralisation of operations will result in reduced costs, the argument commits a serious flaw.
The reason that Apogee Company has operations in multiple locations is indicative that it is a business requirement.
If this is the case, then centralisation will only lead to an increase in travel and administration costs.
The argument could be strengthened by first exploring the nature of business of Apogee Company and whether multiple field operations are a necessity to the business. Further analysis into the reason of fall in profits would also be needed to ascertain if the fall in profits are only because of multiple field offices. Third, a comparison of costs between the two scenarios - centralised operations and field operations, would help support the argument.
However, as it stands, the argument is weak and unsubstantiated.
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 maintains better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:-
The prompt argument is severely flawed for a number of reasons. Primary amongst them is underlying assumption that the reduction in profits of Apogee company is due to the increase in it's operational locations. The argument goes on to claim that centralisation of the operations will result in cost cutting, not taking into account the possibility that multiple locations might be imperative for the proper functioning of the business.
The premise that the business could continue to be profitable while operating only from one location fails to account for multiple scenarios.
One, the nature of the business might need it to be operational in multiple locations. Second, it is possible that the falling profits are because of macro economic conditions rather than reasons pertinent to just Apogee Company's operations. Thirdly, it is also possible that some other reason such as initial capital expenditure has led to a reduction in profits.
Further, in the assumption that centralisation of operations will result in reduced costs, the argument commits a serious flaw.
The reason that Apogee Company has operations in multiple locations is indicative that it is a business requirement.
If this is the case, then centralisation will only lead to an increase in travel and administration costs.
The argument could be strengthened by first exploring the nature of business of Apogee Company and whether multiple field operations are a necessity to the business. Further analysis into the reason of fall in profits would also be needed to ascertain if the fall in profits are only because of multiple field offices. Third, a comparison of costs between the two scenarios - centralised operations and field operations, would help support the argument.
However, as it stands, the argument is weak and unsubstantiated.
