I wrote this essay in 30 minutes. I used a template from a user on this forum. This topic comes from GMAT Review 12th Edition. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting cost has always been a major challenge to a company because cutting cost does not always translate to having more profit. In the preceding statement, the author claims that by closing field offices and having operations in one location, the company will improve profitability. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumptions. And based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is his unsubstantiated premises. Simply saying the company was more profitable before than now is not a sufficient enough reason for the company to change its structure. More information is needed to decide whether having operations in one location is necessary to be profitable. The readers would probably like to know about the market condition, the company's customer base, operations, and so on. The company could have profited from having less competition than it does today. It could have had better management then than now.The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his concusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author made several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that closing down field offices and conducting operations from a single location will help the company be more profitable. We cannot help but ask why the field offices were opened in the first place. It is careless to suggest closing them down without even taking their purposes into consideration. For example, State Farm insurance company would not want to shut down their agent offices and conduct business only within their headquarter. They would lose a lot of customers who prefer doing business face to face with an agent. Also, there is no guarantee that the employees are willing to relocate to work at headquarter. If they are not, the company would lose valuable man power. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failling to provide explication of the links between closing down field offices and being profitable.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author could provide more information to prove that the company's profitability in the past is not coincidental with having operations in one location. Also, he should consider the disadvantages of closing down field offices. With research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truely hopes to change his readers minds on the issue, he would have to fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting cost has always been a major challenge to a company because cutting cost does not always translate to having more profit. In the preceding statement, the author claims that by closing field offices and having operations in one location, the company will improve profitability. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumptions. And based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is his unsubstantiated premises. Simply saying the company was more profitable before than now is not a sufficient enough reason for the company to change its structure. More information is needed to decide whether having operations in one location is necessary to be profitable. The readers would probably like to know about the market condition, the company's customer base, operations, and so on. The company could have profited from having less competition than it does today. It could have had better management then than now.The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his concusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author made several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that closing down field offices and conducting operations from a single location will help the company be more profitable. We cannot help but ask why the field offices were opened in the first place. It is careless to suggest closing them down without even taking their purposes into consideration. For example, State Farm insurance company would not want to shut down their agent offices and conduct business only within their headquarter. They would lose a lot of customers who prefer doing business face to face with an agent. Also, there is no guarantee that the employees are willing to relocate to work at headquarter. If they are not, the company would lose valuable man power. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failling to provide explication of the links between closing down field offices and being profitable.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author could provide more information to prove that the company's profitability in the past is not coincidental with having operations in one location. Also, he should consider the disadvantages of closing down field offices. With research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truely hopes to change his readers minds on the issue, he would have to fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
