AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:
"We are very pleased to announce that the relocation of our inventory, which had been located in four different warehouses throughout the country, to a single new warehouse near Company headquarters in Boston. This consolidated location will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. As a result we expect our monthly profitability to go up by this amount."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
In the argument above, the management team concludes that the company's monthly profitability will increase by the amount saved from consolidating the company's four warehouses into one. The premise of the argument is that the consolidation will cut the company's expenses in half. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that other variable operating costs will not increase as a result of this consolidation and that a warehouse near company headquarters is ideal.
First, the argument falsely assumes that other expenses will not increase as a result of the warehouse consolidation. For example, Amazon owns multiple warehouse locations around the country to reduce shipping costs and shipping time. Although fixed costs are higher with multiple warehouse locations, the company is able to offset these fixed costs with lower shipping costs. If a customer orders a book in New York City, Amazon does not ship the book from its Seattle warehouse. Amazon is actually able to ship the book from its New York City warehouse, thereby reducing the shipping costs incurred by the company.
Second, the reasoning in the argument is flawed because it implies that retaining the warehouse location near company headquarters is preferred to retaining other warehouse locations. This reasoning could be very costly. If the company has manufacturers in China, it would be illogical for the company to ship all the product out to Boston. For example, Apple Inc. builds most of its products in Taiwan and China. Apple actually have fewer warehouses in America than it does in China. Most consumer online purchases are shipped directly from manufacturing warehouses in China. Thus, the company should not assume that retaining the Boston location is preferred simply because it is located near company headquarters.
Moreover, the argument could be improved by indicating that the retail company has fixed shipping contracts with its shipping companies. This would then eliminate the possibility that expenses would increase as a result of the warehouse consolidation. Additionally, the retail company could state that the Boston warehouse location is optimal because the warehouse is close to the company's primary manufacturer. This hypothetical evidence could even suggest that shipping costs from the manufacturer to the warehouse could be reduced in addition to the shipping costs from warehouse locations to consumers or resellers.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that fewer warehouse locations will reduce overall operating expenses, leading to an increase in monthly profitability. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that situating the warehouse near company headquarters is the ideal business strategy. The argument can be made stronger with the improvements described above.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following memo was circulated by the management team of a retail company:
"We are very pleased to announce that the relocation of our inventory, which had been located in four different warehouses throughout the country, to a single new warehouse near Company headquarters in Boston. This consolidated location will cut the company's expenses for warehouse rent in half. As a result we expect our monthly profitability to go up by this amount."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
In the argument above, the management team concludes that the company's monthly profitability will increase by the amount saved from consolidating the company's four warehouses into one. The premise of the argument is that the consolidation will cut the company's expenses in half. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that other variable operating costs will not increase as a result of this consolidation and that a warehouse near company headquarters is ideal.
First, the argument falsely assumes that other expenses will not increase as a result of the warehouse consolidation. For example, Amazon owns multiple warehouse locations around the country to reduce shipping costs and shipping time. Although fixed costs are higher with multiple warehouse locations, the company is able to offset these fixed costs with lower shipping costs. If a customer orders a book in New York City, Amazon does not ship the book from its Seattle warehouse. Amazon is actually able to ship the book from its New York City warehouse, thereby reducing the shipping costs incurred by the company.
Second, the reasoning in the argument is flawed because it implies that retaining the warehouse location near company headquarters is preferred to retaining other warehouse locations. This reasoning could be very costly. If the company has manufacturers in China, it would be illogical for the company to ship all the product out to Boston. For example, Apple Inc. builds most of its products in Taiwan and China. Apple actually have fewer warehouses in America than it does in China. Most consumer online purchases are shipped directly from manufacturing warehouses in China. Thus, the company should not assume that retaining the Boston location is preferred simply because it is located near company headquarters.
Moreover, the argument could be improved by indicating that the retail company has fixed shipping contracts with its shipping companies. This would then eliminate the possibility that expenses would increase as a result of the warehouse consolidation. Additionally, the retail company could state that the Boston warehouse location is optimal because the warehouse is close to the company's primary manufacturer. This hypothetical evidence could even suggest that shipping costs from the manufacturer to the warehouse could be reduced in addition to the shipping costs from warehouse locations to consumers or resellers.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it assumes that fewer warehouse locations will reduce overall operating expenses, leading to an increase in monthly profitability. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that situating the warehouse near company headquarters is the ideal business strategy. The argument can be made stronger with the improvements described above.
