Hello,
this is my second essay of my GMAt preparation and I would be grateful if you could rate it.
Some details:
non-native English speaker
5 min of taking notes to the argument
23 min of writing the essay
2 min of reviewing it
I used almost the same template as last time for my first essay
And here it is:
AWA topic #2
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 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.
While globalisation changes the global market altogether it has also an effect on local markets. In order to withstand growing competition companies try to penetrate the market not only on one location but on several.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the Apagee Company could improve its profitability and supervision of employees by closing down their field offices and by going back to operate in one location again.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument the by operating locally Apagee Company would become more profitable and could maintain a better supervision of its employees cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The premise at hand states that Apagee Company in the past was more profitable when it operated only in one location than in the present where it maintains a number of field offices. Although it may be true that Apagee Company was more profitable in the past this circumstance could have various reasons like risen competition, a loss of interest in their product or mismanagement.
The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack furthermore any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
A company operating in more than one location is, due to the author, less profitable than one with only one operating location. While this assumption may be true in few cases, in general, by going global or by even offering their products nationwide a company can adress more customers and therefor raise their profits.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a company going local and the improvement of profatibility and the supervision of employees he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
By pointing out what the improvement of supervision of all the employees would consist of or how the Apagee Company would intend to raise their profits, the author could have been more persuading.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significally.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure 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.
this is my second essay of my GMAt preparation and I would be grateful if you could rate it.
Some details:
non-native English speaker
5 min of taking notes to the argument
23 min of writing the essay
2 min of reviewing it
I used almost the same template as last time for my first essay
And here it is:
AWA topic #2
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 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.
While globalisation changes the global market altogether it has also an effect on local markets. In order to withstand growing competition companies try to penetrate the market not only on one location but on several.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the Apagee Company could improve its profitability and supervision of employees by closing down their field offices and by going back to operate in one location again.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument the by operating locally Apagee Company would become more profitable and could maintain a better supervision of its employees cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The premise at hand states that Apagee Company in the past was more profitable when it operated only in one location than in the present where it maintains a number of field offices. Although it may be true that Apagee Company was more profitable in the past this circumstance could have various reasons like risen competition, a loss of interest in their product or mismanagement.
The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack furthermore any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
A company operating in more than one location is, due to the author, less profitable than one with only one operating location. While this assumption may be true in few cases, in general, by going global or by even offering their products nationwide a company can adress more customers and therefor raise their profits.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a company going local and the improvement of profatibility and the supervision of employees he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
By pointing out what the improvement of supervision of all the employees would consist of or how the Apagee Company would intend to raise their profits, the author could have been more persuading.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significally.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure 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.
