-
amysky_0205
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:5 members
plz rate this for me or give me some advices to make it better!!
thank u for ur help(:
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."
The conclusion in this argument states that the kind of centralization which the Apogee Company is using would improve its profitability and help to maintain a better supervision of all the employees. However, the author fails to consider several factors when evaluating the argument and only gave a general assumption with no further explanations to support. Thus, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has many flaws.
The first unfolded assumption that the author makes is the profits go up because the company locates in the single spot. However, there might be more reasons such as operating costs, the feature of the local needs, the effect of the global environment, will affect a company's profitability.
The second unfolded assumption that the argument makes is the entire field offices should be closed in order to conduct all the operations from one single location which makes them cost less. However, it fails to recognize the economics of scales and the trend of globalization. A company can have the economics of scales by having subsidiaries in different countries and use the competitive advantages in the local market to lower their cost structure. Furthermore, the trend of the globalization has made the boundaries of the countries disappear. Every company in the world choose the location where has the lowest costs in the manufacturing. Thus, cutting the field offices might fail to raise its profitability.
The third unfolded assumption in the argument is that the company should apply to the centralization and thus all employees will maintain a better supervision. Yet, controlling the employees isn't only by gathering them into a single business unit. A company needs to set up its own management system to control employees and make sure that the senior executives are monitoring their staffs properly. No matter how small or how big the company is.
The few points above are views that the company lack considering when making the conclusion. If it wants to raise the issue above, it might have better or different aspects of considerations. Without supporting points, the argument is weak and has no legs to stand on.
thank u for ur help(:
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."
The conclusion in this argument states that the kind of centralization which the Apogee Company is using would improve its profitability and help to maintain a better supervision of all the employees. However, the author fails to consider several factors when evaluating the argument and only gave a general assumption with no further explanations to support. Thus, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has many flaws.
The first unfolded assumption that the author makes is the profits go up because the company locates in the single spot. However, there might be more reasons such as operating costs, the feature of the local needs, the effect of the global environment, will affect a company's profitability.
The second unfolded assumption that the argument makes is the entire field offices should be closed in order to conduct all the operations from one single location which makes them cost less. However, it fails to recognize the economics of scales and the trend of globalization. A company can have the economics of scales by having subsidiaries in different countries and use the competitive advantages in the local market to lower their cost structure. Furthermore, the trend of the globalization has made the boundaries of the countries disappear. Every company in the world choose the location where has the lowest costs in the manufacturing. Thus, cutting the field offices might fail to raise its profitability.
The third unfolded assumption in the argument is that the company should apply to the centralization and thus all employees will maintain a better supervision. Yet, controlling the employees isn't only by gathering them into a single business unit. A company needs to set up its own management system to control employees and make sure that the senior executives are monitoring their staffs properly. No matter how small or how big the company is.
The few points above are views that the company lack considering when making the conclusion. If it wants to raise the issue above, it might have better or different aspects of considerations. Without supporting points, the argument is weak and has no legs to stand on.
