Topic:
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 a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how weel reasoned ... etc.
My Essay:
The argument that because the Apogee Company once had all its operations in one location and was more profitable then, it should close down its field offices is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it is using the comparatively weak evidence that at some unknown time in the past profitability was higher and all operations happened to be in one location to draw the strong conclusion of a correlation between these two facts. Secondly, it is not entirely clear why the author assumes centralization to be cost cutting and thirdly, closer supervision does not always result in improved profitability.
There is no evidence given to convince the reader of a correlation between higher profitability and working from a single location, apart from the factors having occurred at the same time in the past. For example, it may be that margins for the Apogee Company have declined over increasingly fierce competition, in which case the reduced profitability would have nothing to do with the fact that more locations are now operated. Observing the two aspects at a single point in time is therefore not enough to draw the conclusion of a correlation.
Another flaw in the argument is that centralization is assumed be cost-cutting. If the headquarters were located in offices that occur a fairly high rent, then it would actually increase costs to host all employees at this single location.
Finally, there is no evidence given to convince the reader that more supervision will necessarily improve profitability. These two facts need not to be linked, as, for example, it may well be the case that creative workers show a higher level of productivity under less strict supervision.
The argument could be strengthened by giving more details about when exactly in the past profitability was higher and how much higher it was. This would convince the reader that there was no substantial change in the economy and other external factors during that time period and that profitability was not only marginally but significantly higher, thus ruling out minor fluctuations that have nothing to do with structural decisions. In its current form, however, the argument remains flawed.
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 a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees."
Discuss how weel reasoned ... etc.
My Essay:
The argument that because the Apogee Company once had all its operations in one location and was more profitable then, it should close down its field offices is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it is using the comparatively weak evidence that at some unknown time in the past profitability was higher and all operations happened to be in one location to draw the strong conclusion of a correlation between these two facts. Secondly, it is not entirely clear why the author assumes centralization to be cost cutting and thirdly, closer supervision does not always result in improved profitability.
There is no evidence given to convince the reader of a correlation between higher profitability and working from a single location, apart from the factors having occurred at the same time in the past. For example, it may be that margins for the Apogee Company have declined over increasingly fierce competition, in which case the reduced profitability would have nothing to do with the fact that more locations are now operated. Observing the two aspects at a single point in time is therefore not enough to draw the conclusion of a correlation.
Another flaw in the argument is that centralization is assumed be cost-cutting. If the headquarters were located in offices that occur a fairly high rent, then it would actually increase costs to host all employees at this single location.
Finally, there is no evidence given to convince the reader that more supervision will necessarily improve profitability. These two facts need not to be linked, as, for example, it may well be the case that creative workers show a higher level of productivity under less strict supervision.
The argument could be strengthened by giving more details about when exactly in the past profitability was higher and how much higher it was. This would convince the reader that there was no substantial change in the economy and other external factors during that time period and that profitability was not only marginally but significantly higher, thus ruling out minor fluctuations that have nothing to do with structural decisions. In its current form, however, the argument remains flawed.
