Essay Question:
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:
"We are very pleased to announce 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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
Your Response:
The argument states that the relocation of the company's inventory from four different warehouse to a single new warehouse near its headquarter will results in cost cutting and as a result company's monthly profit go up. Stated in such a way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.The argument has critical three flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the shifting of four different warehouses to a single new warehouse near company headquarters in boston will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key cost factors such as the transportation cost,labour cost etc. It might be the case that the different location is suitable for the distributors, consumers and it is also possible that the labour cost is also low in different locations. The argument could be strengthened by mentioning several cost factors which can also impact the relocation.
Second, the argument also fails to mention the inventory capacity of existing warehouse near headquarters, As it might be the case that the space capacity of new warehouse is low. It is also possible that after shifting the inventory to the new warehouse it is difficult to locate the particular product inventory due to cumbersome arrangement of the inventory in confined space which results from the low space. The argument could be strengthened by considering space confinement factors of new warehouse.
Third, the argument also fails to mention the correlation of monthly profit to cost cutting. The argument could be strengthened by providing cost analysis of cost cutting and monthly profit.
In conclusion, the argument is not sound and persuasive due to the fact that the argument does not provide any support for the assumptions mentioned above. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if the premise clearly had mentioned all the cost, space etc factors. Without any supporting information and evidence one is left with the impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, the argument has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and is not well reasoned. In order to assess all the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:
"We are very pleased to announce 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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
Your Response:
The argument states that the relocation of the company's inventory from four different warehouse to a single new warehouse near its headquarter will results in cost cutting and as a result company's monthly profit go up. Stated in such a way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.The argument has critical three flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the shifting of four different warehouses to a single new warehouse near company headquarters in boston will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key cost factors such as the transportation cost,labour cost etc. It might be the case that the different location is suitable for the distributors, consumers and it is also possible that the labour cost is also low in different locations. The argument could be strengthened by mentioning several cost factors which can also impact the relocation.
Second, the argument also fails to mention the inventory capacity of existing warehouse near headquarters, As it might be the case that the space capacity of new warehouse is low. It is also possible that after shifting the inventory to the new warehouse it is difficult to locate the particular product inventory due to cumbersome arrangement of the inventory in confined space which results from the low space. The argument could be strengthened by considering space confinement factors of new warehouse.
Third, the argument also fails to mention the correlation of monthly profit to cost cutting. The argument could be strengthened by providing cost analysis of cost cutting and monthly profit.
In conclusion, the argument is not sound and persuasive due to the fact that the argument does not provide any support for the assumptions mentioned above. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if the premise clearly had mentioned all the cost, space etc factors. Without any supporting information and evidence one is left with the impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, the argument has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and is not well reasoned. In order to assess all the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
