The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had its all 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."
My response:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that when the Apogee Company had its all operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. To support his argument, the author considers the assumptions that the better supervision of all employees and the cutting costs help to improve profitability of the company. Although his claim may well have merits, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
First of all, the author cites that the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today because it had its all operations in one location. However, the author has not provided any information of how much profit the company made when it had its all operations in one location and how much profit it make today. Also, the author does not include any information about how many percent the profitability of the company has been decreased by today than it was in his premise. Thus, the author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
Secondly, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. In other words, the author assumes that the closing down its branches and conducting operations in one location would help the Apogee Company to improve the profitability of the company. But the author has not provided any explanation of how to cut the costs and to maintain better supervision of all employees. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the numbers of field offices and profitability of the company he assumes exists.
In conclusion, 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 reader's 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.
"When the Apogee Company had its all 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."
My response:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that when the Apogee Company had its all operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. To support his argument, the author considers the assumptions that the better supervision of all employees and the cutting costs help to improve profitability of the company. Although his claim may well have merits, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
First of all, the author cites that the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today because it had its all operations in one location. However, the author has not provided any information of how much profit the company made when it had its all operations in one location and how much profit it make today. Also, the author does not include any information about how many percent the profitability of the company has been decreased by today than it was in his premise. Thus, the author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
Secondly, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. In other words, the author assumes that the closing down its branches and conducting operations in one location would help the Apogee Company to improve the profitability of the company. But the author has not provided any explanation of how to cut the costs and to maintain better supervision of all employees. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the numbers of field offices and profitability of the company he assumes exists.
In conclusion, 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 reader's 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.
