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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Please rate my essay... thank you :-)
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Tommy Wallach
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:58 am
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 188 times
- Followed by:120 members
- GMAT Score:770
Hey Jaga,
While there's some good writing in here, overall this essay has a lot of problems.
A quick note before I start, the prompt itself is FULL of grammatical issues. I don't know if you just copied it incorrectly, but if this is taken from an actual website/company, I would recommend you stop using their materials immediately, because they aren't going to teach you good English grammar (which is, of course, very important for SC).
The problem with your essay is that you aren't pointing out logical flaws in the argument. You're pointing out areas where there's a dearth of information. But that's not really the aim when writing this essay. For example:
Flaw #1: The argument fails to consider that some other factor might have been responsible for the increased profitability in the past.
This is the major flaw in the argument, but you fail to note it. Instead, you try to argue that the argument doesn't cite "how much profit the company made". But that's not actually a flaw. If it was more profitable then, we have to take that as fact. The actual numbers are irrelevant. However, it is a flaw that we don't know if the reason the company was more profitable back then wasn't because it was in one location, but because the economy was better, or there was less competition.
Flaw #2: There's no evidence that what worked in the past would work now.
The argument wants to go back to a way of doing business that was useful in the past. But even if the reason for increased profitability in the past WAS the single location, that doesn't mean it would work now! Maybe the world has spread out, and multiple field offices are necessary to preserve what profitability they have. You try to say "the author has not provided any explanation of how to cut costs/maintain better supervision." But that isn't true. Being in one location, by definition, cuts costs and allows for better supervision. It's purely logical.
Flaw #3: Profitability is the most important thing
What if revenues are way way up, and the company has more market share than ever. They may have had to lower margins for a while to dominate the market, but once they get their share way up, they can raise prices and become profitable again.
Flaw #4: Maybe you could say that the author needs to provide some evidence that centralizing won't hurt their ability to make money in wider markets. You touch on this a bit in your second paragraph, but it isn't quite specific enough.
Hope that helps!
-t
While there's some good writing in here, overall this essay has a lot of problems.
A quick note before I start, the prompt itself is FULL of grammatical issues. I don't know if you just copied it incorrectly, but if this is taken from an actual website/company, I would recommend you stop using their materials immediately, because they aren't going to teach you good English grammar (which is, of course, very important for SC).
The problem with your essay is that you aren't pointing out logical flaws in the argument. You're pointing out areas where there's a dearth of information. But that's not really the aim when writing this essay. For example:
Flaw #1: The argument fails to consider that some other factor might have been responsible for the increased profitability in the past.
This is the major flaw in the argument, but you fail to note it. Instead, you try to argue that the argument doesn't cite "how much profit the company made". But that's not actually a flaw. If it was more profitable then, we have to take that as fact. The actual numbers are irrelevant. However, it is a flaw that we don't know if the reason the company was more profitable back then wasn't because it was in one location, but because the economy was better, or there was less competition.
Flaw #2: There's no evidence that what worked in the past would work now.
The argument wants to go back to a way of doing business that was useful in the past. But even if the reason for increased profitability in the past WAS the single location, that doesn't mean it would work now! Maybe the world has spread out, and multiple field offices are necessary to preserve what profitability they have. You try to say "the author has not provided any explanation of how to cut costs/maintain better supervision." But that isn't true. Being in one location, by definition, cuts costs and allows for better supervision. It's purely logical.
Flaw #3: Profitability is the most important thing
What if revenues are way way up, and the company has more market share than ever. They may have had to lower margins for a while to dominate the market, but once they get their share way up, they can raise prices and become profitable again.
Flaw #4: Maybe you could say that the author needs to provide some evidence that centralizing won't hurt their ability to make money in wider markets. You touch on this a bit in your second paragraph, but it isn't quite specific enough.
Hope that helps!
-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT
If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
ManhattanGMAT
If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
-
tanviet
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:2 members
"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."
I do this in less then 30 minutes and without looking at the other response.
The author concludes that the Apogee company should conduct all its operation in one place. To support this conclusion, the author cites evidence that in the past, when that company had all operation in one place, it is more profitable. Author also cite evidence that centralization would help cut costs and maintain better supervision. I see that the argument is not sound because the argument assumes many important points .
Fisrt, the author assumes that the cause of higher profit is the centralization. This assumption possiblly incorrect. It is possible that the cause of higher profit is another thing. It is possible that new economic environment makes the company sell more products and get higher profit. In my country, when the economic environmental conditions become better, many companies get highter profit. It is possible that when the company centralize, the economic environment becomes better. We can not attribute the higher profit to centralization. The argument would be better if it cite more evidence or statistic which shows clearly that the the cause of higher profit is centralization.
Second the author assumes that the higher profit is cause by cutted cost and better supervision of employees. Even if the centralization causes the higher profit, cutting cost and better supervision do not cause the higher profit. It is possible that the centralization permits the company to meet more customers and the company can sell more products. In my counry, a company centralizes in one place can can meet and market products to more customer. The profit is higher because the company can sell more products even when the cost is higher a little and the supervision of employees is worse a litle . The argument would be more sound if it cites evidence that the cost cutting and better supervision are the causes of the higher profit.
In conclusion, I see that the argument is not convincing because it assumes many important points. These points can be incorrect and the argument falls apart. The argument would be more convincing if it dose the things I suggest above.
I do above response in 25 minutes, including the 5 minutes for editing so, I do not have enough time to read the third assumptions. I try to explain and give example to 2 assumptions in 2 paragraphs deeply. I hope that 2 deep and detail paragraphs in the body can be as good as 3 shalow paragraphs.
pls, comment on my essay and thinking. thank you
I do this in less then 30 minutes and without looking at the other response.
The author concludes that the Apogee company should conduct all its operation in one place. To support this conclusion, the author cites evidence that in the past, when that company had all operation in one place, it is more profitable. Author also cite evidence that centralization would help cut costs and maintain better supervision. I see that the argument is not sound because the argument assumes many important points .
Fisrt, the author assumes that the cause of higher profit is the centralization. This assumption possiblly incorrect. It is possible that the cause of higher profit is another thing. It is possible that new economic environment makes the company sell more products and get higher profit. In my country, when the economic environmental conditions become better, many companies get highter profit. It is possible that when the company centralize, the economic environment becomes better. We can not attribute the higher profit to centralization. The argument would be better if it cite more evidence or statistic which shows clearly that the the cause of higher profit is centralization.
Second the author assumes that the higher profit is cause by cutted cost and better supervision of employees. Even if the centralization causes the higher profit, cutting cost and better supervision do not cause the higher profit. It is possible that the centralization permits the company to meet more customers and the company can sell more products. In my counry, a company centralizes in one place can can meet and market products to more customer. The profit is higher because the company can sell more products even when the cost is higher a little and the supervision of employees is worse a litle . The argument would be more sound if it cites evidence that the cost cutting and better supervision are the causes of the higher profit.
In conclusion, I see that the argument is not convincing because it assumes many important points. These points can be incorrect and the argument falls apart. The argument would be more convincing if it dose the things I suggest above.
I do above response in 25 minutes, including the 5 minutes for editing so, I do not have enough time to read the third assumptions. I try to explain and give example to 2 assumptions in 2 paragraphs deeply. I hope that 2 deep and detail paragraphs in the body can be as good as 3 shalow paragraphs.
pls, comment on my essay and thinking. thank you
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Tommy Wallach
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:58 am
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 188 times
- Followed by:120 members
- GMAT Score:770
Hey Duong,
Great first example, paragraph. I think your second is slightly weaker, on two levels: First of all, centralizing would cut costs almost by definition, so it's weird to act like that isn't assured. More importantly, I don't quite see how it's possible that centralizing would allow access to more customers (field offices are in more far-flung places), so that seems like a stretch. Your writing is great here, by the way, but just make sure you're focused on logical errors in the argument as much as possible. See my first response to see exactly the kind of flaws I think are most salient here.
Good luck!
-t
Great first example, paragraph. I think your second is slightly weaker, on two levels: First of all, centralizing would cut costs almost by definition, so it's weird to act like that isn't assured. More importantly, I don't quite see how it's possible that centralizing would allow access to more customers (field offices are in more far-flung places), so that seems like a stretch. Your writing is great here, by the way, but just make sure you're focused on logical errors in the argument as much as possible. See my first response to see exactly the kind of flaws I think are most salient here.
Good luck!
-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT
If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
ManhattanGMAT
If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
