-
ramitagrawal
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:07 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
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 argument claims that with the expansion of field offices the company has witnessed a decline in profits and thus going back to centralized operations would reverse the fortunes. This claim lacks a lot of supporting information and evidences without which the claim can't stand.
First, the author mentions that the company now has field offices, which were not present earlier. The setting up of field offices could be a result of business expansion in new geographical areas. If that is the case, centralized operations may lead to further losses depending upon the business of the company. For instance, a production company, may be better off with supply centers in major market places or a service company would save a lot of travelling costs of the business is closer to the customers.
Second, the author does not tell us about the field of business. If that particular field of business has seen a global decline and hence reduced margins, then the conclusion will be baseless. The author has not presented such facts as to the performance of that particular sector of business.
Third, there is a possibility that the company expanded its business portfolio and the new wing isn't making money and hence is eating the total profits. In such a case, cost cutting measures such as this could prove to be detrimental to the organization.
In sum, the argument lacks much needed information and relies on assumptions. The author conclusion is a stretch and needs to be substantiated with evidences. The conclusion seems a hasty one and could sound more convincing if presented with more details.
Please rate the essay. I have a week before my GMAT. Want to just check where I stand in AWA. Thanks for your efforts.
"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 argument claims that with the expansion of field offices the company has witnessed a decline in profits and thus going back to centralized operations would reverse the fortunes. This claim lacks a lot of supporting information and evidences without which the claim can't stand.
First, the author mentions that the company now has field offices, which were not present earlier. The setting up of field offices could be a result of business expansion in new geographical areas. If that is the case, centralized operations may lead to further losses depending upon the business of the company. For instance, a production company, may be better off with supply centers in major market places or a service company would save a lot of travelling costs of the business is closer to the customers.
Second, the author does not tell us about the field of business. If that particular field of business has seen a global decline and hence reduced margins, then the conclusion will be baseless. The author has not presented such facts as to the performance of that particular sector of business.
Third, there is a possibility that the company expanded its business portfolio and the new wing isn't making money and hence is eating the total profits. In such a case, cost cutting measures such as this could prove to be detrimental to the organization.
In sum, the argument lacks much needed information and relies on assumptions. The author conclusion is a stretch and needs to be substantiated with evidences. The conclusion seems a hasty one and could sound more convincing if presented with more details.
Please rate the essay. I have a week before my GMAT. Want to just check where I stand in AWA. Thanks for your efforts.
