-
tanvis1120
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:53 am
- Location: United States
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:5 members
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:
"We are very pleased to announce that the relocation of our inventory, which had been located in four different warehouses throughout the country, to a single new warehouse near Company headquarters in Boston. This consolidated location will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. As a result we expect our monthly profitability to go up by this amount."
My Essay:
The argument states that a Company in question has announced the relocation of its widespread inventory so as to merge it into a brand new single warehouse close to its headquarters in Boston. Such a step is expected to reduce the current expense of the company as it, no longer, has to pay for multiple rented warehouses. Hence, it would boost the present monthly profit that this Company has been earning. However, this argument relies on a number of unreasonable and illogical assumptions which leaves it weak and totally unconvincing.
First of all, the argument has nowhere mentioned about the size of the retail Company that it is arguing for. This is because the number and size of inventories required for a particular Company is directly proportional to the size of the Company. For example, if the Company in question is a small retail firm, it is not necessary for it to maintain warehouses throughout the country. Its inventory can be restricted to a little one, if it mainly deals in special orders in hand. On the contrary, for a large retail store, it is recommended, rather very necessary, to keep large inventories at multiple locations to cater to harbor its large volume of goods.
Another weak point in the argument is that cutting down on the number of warehouses will increase the Company's monthly profitability. There is no solid figure presented so as to show the profit versus the expense due to keeping multiple warehouses is quoted by the argument to prove this fact. There can be varied possibilities, for example, the Company's profit is so high that adding up a few thousand dollars just by maintaining a single warehouse, instead of multiple, will not be significant at all. Again, it could be an entirely different scenario if the Company is already at stake, in which case, cutting down the rent of multiple warehouses might especially prove to be helpful to enhance its profitability.
Yet another point that strongly weakens this argument is that it gives no idea about the Company popularity as a Brand throughout the country. This is required to decide the company's sales throughout the Country. What if there is a huge demand of its products among people. In this case, frequent shipping of its products to individual customer might be costlier than maintaining a couple of rented warehouses. Failing to regularly delivering the products, will certainly disappoint its customers, eventually affecting the company's reputation. This would prove to be rather detrimental to its profitability.
Therefore, it is pretty much clear that the argument has to be supported with essential facts and evidences, which it definitely lacks. To substantially strengthen it, the above mentioned points should be taken care of. Without all these facts, the argument remains unimpressive and fails to persuade its readers.
"We are very pleased to announce that the relocation of our inventory, which had been located in four different warehouses throughout the country, to a single new warehouse near Company headquarters in Boston. This consolidated location will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. As a result we expect our monthly profitability to go up by this amount."
My Essay:
The argument states that a Company in question has announced the relocation of its widespread inventory so as to merge it into a brand new single warehouse close to its headquarters in Boston. Such a step is expected to reduce the current expense of the company as it, no longer, has to pay for multiple rented warehouses. Hence, it would boost the present monthly profit that this Company has been earning. However, this argument relies on a number of unreasonable and illogical assumptions which leaves it weak and totally unconvincing.
First of all, the argument has nowhere mentioned about the size of the retail Company that it is arguing for. This is because the number and size of inventories required for a particular Company is directly proportional to the size of the Company. For example, if the Company in question is a small retail firm, it is not necessary for it to maintain warehouses throughout the country. Its inventory can be restricted to a little one, if it mainly deals in special orders in hand. On the contrary, for a large retail store, it is recommended, rather very necessary, to keep large inventories at multiple locations to cater to harbor its large volume of goods.
Another weak point in the argument is that cutting down on the number of warehouses will increase the Company's monthly profitability. There is no solid figure presented so as to show the profit versus the expense due to keeping multiple warehouses is quoted by the argument to prove this fact. There can be varied possibilities, for example, the Company's profit is so high that adding up a few thousand dollars just by maintaining a single warehouse, instead of multiple, will not be significant at all. Again, it could be an entirely different scenario if the Company is already at stake, in which case, cutting down the rent of multiple warehouses might especially prove to be helpful to enhance its profitability.
Yet another point that strongly weakens this argument is that it gives no idea about the Company popularity as a Brand throughout the country. This is required to decide the company's sales throughout the Country. What if there is a huge demand of its products among people. In this case, frequent shipping of its products to individual customer might be costlier than maintaining a couple of rented warehouses. Failing to regularly delivering the products, will certainly disappoint its customers, eventually affecting the company's reputation. This would prove to be rather detrimental to its profitability.
Therefore, it is pretty much clear that the argument has to be supported with essential facts and evidences, which it definitely lacks. To substantially strengthen it, the above mentioned points should be taken care of. Without all these facts, the argument remains unimpressive and fails to persuade its readers.
