The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author here makes several assumptions, all of which are weak and questionable.
For example, he assumes that no factors other than the operating of the company from more than one location could have lead to the reduction in profitability. He ignores the possibility that the loss of profitability could have resulted from the decrease in the overall demand of the company's products. The demand could have fallen due to any reasons, including increased competition, availibility of better options in the market, and, last but not the least, the deteriorating quality of the products.
The argument only mentions reducing costs and increasing supervision of employees as a reason for supporting its conclusion, i.e, closing off all the field offices and maintaining just one office. It doesnot list other measures to improve performance,such as increasing the efficiency in production.
Such an increase could only result from a change of overall work culture, not just by reducing the number of offices.
Another topic not explained in the argument is the term, profitaility. Is it the increase in overall revenue, or just the percentage increase over last year. If its the latter, there could have been several reasons for it. In the past the company could have been small enough to make operating from just one location possible. However, it could have made rapid progress and now is so big that working from just one location isnt possible any more. This fact could also explain the decrease in the increase in profits. After all, a big company can't grow as fast as a small company can. But this fact doesn't make it any less profitable.
Overall, I would just like to say that the argument is weak at the very least. The author could have made it strong by explaining what exactly he meant by the term 'profitable' and how does the number of offices of the company affects it. Also, he could clearly explain that the decease in profitability is simply the result of increasing costs and reduced supervision of employees, the only 2 reasons he has mentioned in support of his conculsion that the company should operate from just one office. Unless he solves these glitches in his argument, it is likely to convince few people, if any at all.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author here makes several assumptions, all of which are weak and questionable.
For example, he assumes that no factors other than the operating of the company from more than one location could have lead to the reduction in profitability. He ignores the possibility that the loss of profitability could have resulted from the decrease in the overall demand of the company's products. The demand could have fallen due to any reasons, including increased competition, availibility of better options in the market, and, last but not the least, the deteriorating quality of the products.
The argument only mentions reducing costs and increasing supervision of employees as a reason for supporting its conclusion, i.e, closing off all the field offices and maintaining just one office. It doesnot list other measures to improve performance,such as increasing the efficiency in production.
Such an increase could only result from a change of overall work culture, not just by reducing the number of offices.
Another topic not explained in the argument is the term, profitaility. Is it the increase in overall revenue, or just the percentage increase over last year. If its the latter, there could have been several reasons for it. In the past the company could have been small enough to make operating from just one location possible. However, it could have made rapid progress and now is so big that working from just one location isnt possible any more. This fact could also explain the decrease in the increase in profits. After all, a big company can't grow as fast as a small company can. But this fact doesn't make it any less profitable.
Overall, I would just like to say that the argument is weak at the very least. The author could have made it strong by explaining what exactly he meant by the term 'profitable' and how does the number of offices of the company affects it. Also, he could clearly explain that the decease in profitability is simply the result of increasing costs and reduced supervision of employees, the only 2 reasons he has mentioned in support of his conculsion that the company should operate from just one office. Unless he solves these glitches in his argument, it is likely to convince few people, if any at all.
