Dear Members,
I registered for the GMAT and I am practicing the AWA. I would highly appreciate your review and feedback. I would highly appreciate your comments and rates. Thank you.
Argument:
"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."
Essay:
The argument states that the Apogee Company in previous years was more profitable than it is today and the reason falls out to be the operation in one location as claimed by the author. Recommending from the company to close all its offices and stick to centralization which in his/her view improves profitability and cuts costs. This argument is flawed for several reasons, where the author assumed that operating in one location is more profitable for the company from having several offices without showing any clear or convincing evidence, as well as calling for centralization without a convincing reason.
First, the author base his assumption of profitability upon weak ground, with only showing that the company nowadays seemed to be less profitable than before, and not providing any reason for such result. To illustrate, the memorandum didn't include any clue about current or previous kind of operations, the size of such operations, the costs, or even the economic situation of the location where the Agopee Company is performing. Furthermore, the correlation between profitability and number of offices is weak and unsupported with clear facts. Clearly, the argument could have been strengthened if necessary data regarding the size of operations or the crisis that the company has passed through could have been stated.
Second, it was readily claimed that the Apogee Company should close its offices, and seek centralization which will improve profitability by cutting costs, and providing better employee supervision. This is again a weak and unconvincing flaw where it was supposed that centralization is the only way out for profitability without taking in to consideration the costs behind downsizing or the losses which the company will have from losing part of its market share. As an example of this, centralization may have several disadvantages for the company such as losing large number of customers or relations. In fact, there is no clear evidence provided where this could have been more convincing by stating the benefits of centralization or the need of the company to downsize or the reflection of real costs.
Finally, this argument tends to be of no clear convincing evidence, since the author based his/her decisions upon weak and no clear facts. Without outstanding answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons of supposing that the one office company if more profitable than several offices one without giving facts or sufficient data for such claim, as well as stating that centralization is the best way out where there could be no relation between it and profitability. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. In this particular case, the size of operations, kind of operations, need of centralization, and the contribution to cost downsizing. Without these information, the argument remains open to debate.
I registered for the GMAT and I am practicing the AWA. I would highly appreciate your review and feedback. I would highly appreciate your comments and rates. Thank you.
Argument:
"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."
Essay:
The argument states that the Apogee Company in previous years was more profitable than it is today and the reason falls out to be the operation in one location as claimed by the author. Recommending from the company to close all its offices and stick to centralization which in his/her view improves profitability and cuts costs. This argument is flawed for several reasons, where the author assumed that operating in one location is more profitable for the company from having several offices without showing any clear or convincing evidence, as well as calling for centralization without a convincing reason.
First, the author base his assumption of profitability upon weak ground, with only showing that the company nowadays seemed to be less profitable than before, and not providing any reason for such result. To illustrate, the memorandum didn't include any clue about current or previous kind of operations, the size of such operations, the costs, or even the economic situation of the location where the Agopee Company is performing. Furthermore, the correlation between profitability and number of offices is weak and unsupported with clear facts. Clearly, the argument could have been strengthened if necessary data regarding the size of operations or the crisis that the company has passed through could have been stated.
Second, it was readily claimed that the Apogee Company should close its offices, and seek centralization which will improve profitability by cutting costs, and providing better employee supervision. This is again a weak and unconvincing flaw where it was supposed that centralization is the only way out for profitability without taking in to consideration the costs behind downsizing or the losses which the company will have from losing part of its market share. As an example of this, centralization may have several disadvantages for the company such as losing large number of customers or relations. In fact, there is no clear evidence provided where this could have been more convincing by stating the benefits of centralization or the need of the company to downsize or the reflection of real costs.
Finally, this argument tends to be of no clear convincing evidence, since the author based his/her decisions upon weak and no clear facts. Without outstanding answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons of supposing that the one office company if more profitable than several offices one without giving facts or sufficient data for such claim, as well as stating that centralization is the best way out where there could be no relation between it and profitability. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. In this particular case, the size of operations, kind of operations, need of centralization, and the contribution to cost downsizing. Without these information, the argument remains open to debate.
