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."
In this memorandum, the author concludes that Apogee should close down all its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location in order to become more profitable. To support his argument, the author prophesizes that the earlier one stop shop model used by Apogee and better employee supervision will make Apogee profitable but at the same time fails to consider the time of the establishment of the first single office. While the argument has some merit, it contains several questionable assumptions that need to be addressed.
Most conspicuously, the author assumes that the earlier model followed by Apogee will prove to be successful, if implemented again. However, the author fails to provide any information about the timelines related to the earlier adopted one location model. For instance, if Apogee was the first company to enter the market, it would make sense to operate out of a single location, but if its competitors have copied its product and entered into different markets, closing down field offices at other location may not be a good strategy.
Additionally, the author assumes that all the field offices are unprofitable and have contributed to the decline in the bottom line for Apogee. However, the author fails to provide any information about the location of profitable field offices and their market penetration in that area. If assuming, a field office has gained a substantial market share within a State, its closing down will not help Apogee to improve the profitability of Apogee. Apogee should only focus on closing those field offices which are unprofitable or unlikely to be profitable in the long run.
Finally, the author assumes that better employee supervision will lead to improved profitability for Apogee but fails to establish any relationship between the two. For instance, improved supervision over all the employees might make them reluctant and annoyed; thus, reducing the Apogee's profits. The author should take into consideration, better alternatives such as providing high quality training to Apogee's employees in order to make Apogee more profitable. Without any relationship between employee supervision and profitability of Apogee, the argument cannot be properly evaluated.
In conclusion, the argument is poorly supported and is unconvincing. To support his argument, the author first needs to provide information about the time when Apogee operated from a single office. Additionally, the author needs to show that all Apogee's field offices are unprofitable and also show that better employee supervision leads to profitability. Without this information, the argument cannot be properly evaluated and is thus unconvincing.
"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."
In this memorandum, the author concludes that Apogee should close down all its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location in order to become more profitable. To support his argument, the author prophesizes that the earlier one stop shop model used by Apogee and better employee supervision will make Apogee profitable but at the same time fails to consider the time of the establishment of the first single office. While the argument has some merit, it contains several questionable assumptions that need to be addressed.
Most conspicuously, the author assumes that the earlier model followed by Apogee will prove to be successful, if implemented again. However, the author fails to provide any information about the timelines related to the earlier adopted one location model. For instance, if Apogee was the first company to enter the market, it would make sense to operate out of a single location, but if its competitors have copied its product and entered into different markets, closing down field offices at other location may not be a good strategy.
Additionally, the author assumes that all the field offices are unprofitable and have contributed to the decline in the bottom line for Apogee. However, the author fails to provide any information about the location of profitable field offices and their market penetration in that area. If assuming, a field office has gained a substantial market share within a State, its closing down will not help Apogee to improve the profitability of Apogee. Apogee should only focus on closing those field offices which are unprofitable or unlikely to be profitable in the long run.
Finally, the author assumes that better employee supervision will lead to improved profitability for Apogee but fails to establish any relationship between the two. For instance, improved supervision over all the employees might make them reluctant and annoyed; thus, reducing the Apogee's profits. The author should take into consideration, better alternatives such as providing high quality training to Apogee's employees in order to make Apogee more profitable. Without any relationship between employee supervision and profitability of Apogee, the argument cannot be properly evaluated.
In conclusion, the argument is poorly supported and is unconvincing. To support his argument, the author first needs to provide information about the time when Apogee operated from a single office. Additionally, the author needs to show that all Apogee's field offices are unprofitable and also show that better employee supervision leads to profitability. Without this information, the argument cannot be properly evaluated and is thus unconvincing.
