This is my first AWA Argument made, took me like 40 minutes, I know I need to improve time and grammar... but do you think I could get at least a 4? I know that it isn't an excuse but because English is not my native language it becomes hard sometimes to express some ideas. My exam is on July 7th, so wish me luck guys 
.
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."
Apogee Company believes that it should close down all of its field offices and should conduct all its operations from a single location because doing so would improve profitability by cutting cost and helping the company maintain better supervision of its employees. The presented argument contains several flaws and the conclusion that Apogee Company should close its extension offices has been rushed due to the lack of information and evidence.
First, the argument concludes erroneously that by closing down the all of the extension offices Apogee Company would increase its profitability. The author doesn't present any evidence which makes reference between profitability and extension offices, and simply infer that the cause of the lower earnings is the appareance of new field offices. The author fails to search for a more complex cause of the problem which could be the entrance of a new competitor to the market, the influence of the economic enviroment, or perhaps the leaving of key employees who made the company more profitable. It's hard to defend the conclusion of the author since it's well known that for a Company to grow has to expand its horizon and extension offices usually conduct to better profits.
On the other hand, the author states that by closing down all of the extension offices Apogee Company would reduce cost and help maintain better supervision of all employees, conclusion that might not be true because when closing the extension offices, also earnings are cut and maybe the resulting effect would be the increase of losses. There's no evidence presented in this argument that such field offices are reducing the earnings of the Company and the author needs to consider this fact if he wants to make a conclusion clear for the lector. Also, the supervision of the employees doesn't rely on the number of field offices but in the supervisors themselves whose job is to ensure that the employees are cooperating with the Company.
As said before, there are several flaws in the argument which may be corrected by adding some new evidence which would make the author's conclusion more reasonable. In final analysis, taking the decision of closing the field offices of Apogee Company based on the premises of this argument could result in a even worst scenario for the Company, if new evidence is not presented on the table of discussion, the future of the Apogee would be given to the luck.
.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."
Apogee Company believes that it should close down all of its field offices and should conduct all its operations from a single location because doing so would improve profitability by cutting cost and helping the company maintain better supervision of its employees. The presented argument contains several flaws and the conclusion that Apogee Company should close its extension offices has been rushed due to the lack of information and evidence.
First, the argument concludes erroneously that by closing down the all of the extension offices Apogee Company would increase its profitability. The author doesn't present any evidence which makes reference between profitability and extension offices, and simply infer that the cause of the lower earnings is the appareance of new field offices. The author fails to search for a more complex cause of the problem which could be the entrance of a new competitor to the market, the influence of the economic enviroment, or perhaps the leaving of key employees who made the company more profitable. It's hard to defend the conclusion of the author since it's well known that for a Company to grow has to expand its horizon and extension offices usually conduct to better profits.
On the other hand, the author states that by closing down all of the extension offices Apogee Company would reduce cost and help maintain better supervision of all employees, conclusion that might not be true because when closing the extension offices, also earnings are cut and maybe the resulting effect would be the increase of losses. There's no evidence presented in this argument that such field offices are reducing the earnings of the Company and the author needs to consider this fact if he wants to make a conclusion clear for the lector. Also, the supervision of the employees doesn't rely on the number of field offices but in the supervisors themselves whose job is to ensure that the employees are cooperating with the Company.
As said before, there are several flaws in the argument which may be corrected by adding some new evidence which would make the author's conclusion more reasonable. In final analysis, taking the decision of closing the field offices of Apogee Company based on the premises of this argument could result in a even worst scenario for the Company, if new evidence is not presented on the table of discussion, the future of the Apogee would be given to the luck.
