The argument claims that Apogee company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location than today. The argument further suggests that apogee company should close its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location as this would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.
Stated in this way the argument reveals example of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. It also fails to mention several key factors based on which the argument could be evaluated.
First the argument readily assumes that, the profitability in the past was more because it had all the operations in one location. This statement is stretch because the profitability in the past could have depended on so many different factors. For example, the company may have lost one of their biggest customers due to factors such as availability of cheaper but equivalent product from competitors. Clearly knowledge of customer base is required to ascertain this claim.
Second the argument claims that company should close its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location as this would improve profitability by cutting costs. This again is rather weak and unsupported claim as argument does not give any fact, example to support the correlation between closing down field offices and operation from a single location and improvement in profitability. To illustrate this correlation author may give information about any incidence from past which would provide support to the claim. While closing field-office will cut cost, but it can also lead to loss in revenue. If the argument had provided evidence for the fact that cost cutting would be greater than any potential loss in revenue from closing the field office, then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, it would have helped, if the argument could provide answer to the following question:
1. Has other company that has operated from a single location been more profitable?
2. Is the decrease in profitability has not been caused by any other factor such as economic, political?
Without answers to these questions, the argument comes across as more of wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In the end the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts.
To ascertain the demerits of certain decisions/situations it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, none of the contributing factors of profitability of company is discussed.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Stated in this way the argument reveals example of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. It also fails to mention several key factors based on which the argument could be evaluated.
First the argument readily assumes that, the profitability in the past was more because it had all the operations in one location. This statement is stretch because the profitability in the past could have depended on so many different factors. For example, the company may have lost one of their biggest customers due to factors such as availability of cheaper but equivalent product from competitors. Clearly knowledge of customer base is required to ascertain this claim.
Second the argument claims that company should close its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location as this would improve profitability by cutting costs. This again is rather weak and unsupported claim as argument does not give any fact, example to support the correlation between closing down field offices and operation from a single location and improvement in profitability. To illustrate this correlation author may give information about any incidence from past which would provide support to the claim. While closing field-office will cut cost, but it can also lead to loss in revenue. If the argument had provided evidence for the fact that cost cutting would be greater than any potential loss in revenue from closing the field office, then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, it would have helped, if the argument could provide answer to the following question:
1. Has other company that has operated from a single location been more profitable?
2. Is the decrease in profitability has not been caused by any other factor such as economic, political?
Without answers to these questions, the argument comes across as more of wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In the end the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts.
To ascertain the demerits of certain decisions/situations it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, none of the contributing factors of profitability of company is discussed.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
