GMAT Essays (AWA)

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 the Apogee Company was more profitable when the company operated from a single location and expansion has lowered the company's profits. The author further suggests that by closing down its field offices and bringing back its operations to a single location, the company can improve its profits by cutting costs and will help to supervise its employees effectively. The argument in its present form is flawed and the conclusion is based on the assumptions. Shutting down the offices in different parts of the country will cut the costs but assuming that it will improve the profits is seriously flawed. Moreover, the author assumes that profits have come down due to the expansion of the company and ignores the facts that there are other factors which also decide the profitability of the company.

The author's suggestion of closing down the field offices and carry all of its operations from a single location will help Apogee to cut the costs at first place but to accommodate the displaced workforce at a single location will add additional costs. The company will require expanding its campus and will need more infrastructures to conduct all its operations from a single place. Furthermore, closing its field offices may cause disconnect with its client in those specific areas and clients may pull out the business. Instead of profits going up, this suggestion may add additional costs to the company and affects its profits. The argument could have been strengthened if it has limited the suggestion to closing of non-performing field offices and creating zonal offices. This way the company would be able to cut costs and not to bring all the operations at a single location.

Secondly, the argument fails to consider the other aspects which decide the profitability of a company. The author cites that the company was profitable when it was operating from a single location. However, the author does not provide the numbers and profit figures for the company. It could be that profits have decreased by 1% from the initial period to the current period. This does not mean the company in its present state is not profitable.

Since the argument is based on assumptions and correlated profitability with expansion, it is not very sound or persuasive. If the argument has limited its suggestion to closing of non-performing field offices and a rational choice of creating zonal offices instead of operating from a single location, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.

Rate my AWA plz....

Question :

"To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale."


Answer :
Postal service has been a hot topic in the US as of late. Many people debate that deterioration of postal services is because of external system, many affirm it. Many assert that internal policy change will not affect the current standings of postal services and many believe that making changes in internal system such as changes in price of postage stamps will definitely bring in the desired change in postal services.

In the preceding statement author claims that to reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. Author also claims that this solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale.

Although his claim may well have merits, author poorly reasoned argument is based on questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence author offers. We cannot accept his conclusion valid.

The primary issue in author reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author says that government should raise the prices of postage stamps in order to reverse the deterioration of postal services, but what if the people who are presently using the postal services are using this services because it is cheaper. Also, what if the price increase in stamps will further decrease the number of people currently using postal services. This will certainly not increase the revenue, which in turn will neither eliminate the strain nor will contribute in the improvement of the morale. The argument premise, the base of the argument lack many legitimate evident supports that render this conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, author weakens his argument by making several assumptions which are never proven. Author assumes that many people who are currently using the services will not stop using the services even if the prices of the stamps are increased. Which further means that strain on the existing service system will not change. Thus author fails to provide the explication between the increase in the prices of postage stamps and increase in the revenue which he assumes exists.

Although the poorly reasoned argument have several flaws and the conclusion is not consistent with the premises, it is not to say that the complete argument is without base. Author should have provided the support which can prove that price increase will definitely increase the revenue of the postal services. Also, author could have provided the relation between the reduction in the volume of mail and strain reduction. With more research and clarification author could improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on unsubstantiated premises, questionable assumptions and based on the unsupported evidence that render his conclusion invalid.

If author truly hopes to change the readers mind, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, provide the explication between the links, and provide more evident support, without which few will likely to convince.