essay question:
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."
Your response:
The argument states that decentralization of the Apogee Company is not profitable. Hence, the field offices should be closed down and all the operations should be centralized at one location which would increase the profits by cost cutting and better supervision of the employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and full of flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the company was making more profits solely because all its operations were conducted at one location. The argument did not take into account the market situation at that time. According to a report in a business magazine, the inflation rate was at the highest level in 2005 and the market was at its boom for the next four years .It is the same period during which the Apogee company had the centralized operations. It is entirely possible that the company was making profits because of the good condition of the market.The argument would have been clearer, if the author had been able to justify that the sole reason of the profits was the centralization by giving strong evidences.
Secondly , the author sates that centralization also helps in maintaining better supervision of the employees.
From this statement again, the author fails to demonstrate the co-relation between the centralization and supervision of the employees. It is not at all clear how a centralized company provides better supervision of the employees than a decentralized one. Infact, excellent supervision can be easily achieved in a decentralized company by maintaining a proper hierarchy. If any such co-relation had been shown by giving supporting evidences and examples, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the author erroneously states that the company should close down its field offices and hence, improve profitability by cost cutting. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not consider the consequences of this action. It is entirely possible that the company might lose a large number of potential customers and hence incur a huge amount of loss. The author also fails to consider other factor like transportation service, which is likely to increase because of the centralization and hence can become a great cost to company. Without supporting examples which prove that closing down the field offices is an efficient cost cutting approach , one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
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."
Your response:
The argument states that decentralization of the Apogee Company is not profitable. Hence, the field offices should be closed down and all the operations should be centralized at one location which would increase the profits by cost cutting and better supervision of the employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and full of flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the company was making more profits solely because all its operations were conducted at one location. The argument did not take into account the market situation at that time. According to a report in a business magazine, the inflation rate was at the highest level in 2005 and the market was at its boom for the next four years .It is the same period during which the Apogee company had the centralized operations. It is entirely possible that the company was making profits because of the good condition of the market.The argument would have been clearer, if the author had been able to justify that the sole reason of the profits was the centralization by giving strong evidences.
Secondly , the author sates that centralization also helps in maintaining better supervision of the employees.
From this statement again, the author fails to demonstrate the co-relation between the centralization and supervision of the employees. It is not at all clear how a centralized company provides better supervision of the employees than a decentralized one. Infact, excellent supervision can be easily achieved in a decentralized company by maintaining a proper hierarchy. If any such co-relation had been shown by giving supporting evidences and examples, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the author erroneously states that the company should close down its field offices and hence, improve profitability by cost cutting. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not consider the consequences of this action. It is entirely possible that the company might lose a large number of potential customers and hence incur a huge amount of loss. The author also fails to consider other factor like transportation service, which is likely to increase because of the centralization and hence can become a great cost to company. Without supporting examples which prove that closing down the field offices is an efficient cost cutting approach , one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
