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."
The argument claims that since the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location, to improve profitability the apogee company should close all its current field offices and once again operate from a single location. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors that are necessary to evaluate the argument. The conclusion is based on several assumptions that lack necessary evidence to substantiate them. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the current situation is same as the situation when the Apogee Company operated from a single location. This is unsubstantiated by relevant proof as it is possible that the economic situation is different now. Also, the author doesn't mention the reason for the drop in the profitability in the company but rather assumes that it is because of operation from multiple locations. This assumption can be significantly strengthened if the author provided relevant figures to indicate that the multiple field offices were responsible for the drop in profitability of the company.
The argument also claims that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs. This statement is a stretch because it is possible that the business of the Apogee Company has expanded and to increase revenue the company has opened multiple field offices. The argument doesn't explicitly prove that the business of the Apogee Company could be run from a single location. Many companies such as consulting firms require first hand interactions with their client. If the company closes it field offices, then to run its business the company may have to incur large travelling expenses that may offset the gains of closing down field offices. Hence, the author should provide details about the company business and if it is possible to run the company from a single office profitably in the current scenario.
Finally, the argument states that centralization will help the company maintain better supervision of its employees. It is possible that with a larger workforce this is no longer possible. The field offices could be effective in allowing the company to better manage its workforce. The US Government itself has often broken down large companies into smaller entities as it felt they pose a risk to the economy. Without sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, the conclusion that centralization will help in better supervision sounds more like wishful thinking rather than a convincing argument.
In summary, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing. It can be significantly strengthened if the author mentions relevant facts that will provide evidence for the assumptions made. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is necessary to have knowledge of several contributing factors.
"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."
The argument claims that since the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location, to improve profitability the apogee company should close all its current field offices and once again operate from a single location. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors that are necessary to evaluate the argument. The conclusion is based on several assumptions that lack necessary evidence to substantiate them. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the current situation is same as the situation when the Apogee Company operated from a single location. This is unsubstantiated by relevant proof as it is possible that the economic situation is different now. Also, the author doesn't mention the reason for the drop in the profitability in the company but rather assumes that it is because of operation from multiple locations. This assumption can be significantly strengthened if the author provided relevant figures to indicate that the multiple field offices were responsible for the drop in profitability of the company.
The argument also claims that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs. This statement is a stretch because it is possible that the business of the Apogee Company has expanded and to increase revenue the company has opened multiple field offices. The argument doesn't explicitly prove that the business of the Apogee Company could be run from a single location. Many companies such as consulting firms require first hand interactions with their client. If the company closes it field offices, then to run its business the company may have to incur large travelling expenses that may offset the gains of closing down field offices. Hence, the author should provide details about the company business and if it is possible to run the company from a single office profitably in the current scenario.
Finally, the argument states that centralization will help the company maintain better supervision of its employees. It is possible that with a larger workforce this is no longer possible. The field offices could be effective in allowing the company to better manage its workforce. The US Government itself has often broken down large companies into smaller entities as it felt they pose a risk to the economy. Without sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, the conclusion that centralization will help in better supervision sounds more like wishful thinking rather than a convincing argument.
In summary, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing. It can be significantly strengthened if the author mentions relevant facts that will provide evidence for the assumptions made. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is necessary to have knowledge of several contributing factors.
