[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." Discuss how well reasoned...etc. ]
The author of the memorandum argues that closing down the Apogee company's field offices and operating from a single location is the ticket to the profitability, thus success of the company. Although location might have factored into the company's performances, the author's argument lacks substances and hence the arugment is not logically convincing as it stands.
Firstly, the author fails to clarify the period in which the author is comparing it to. The author needs to state what kind of economic condition the Apogee company was in when it had its operations all in one place and what type of condition the company is operating in today. It might be possible that the economic condition when the Apogee company prospered was during economic boom which turned out to be a bubble. Substantiating the argument with specific numbers such as inflation rate, company default rate, and employment rate can make the arugment more convincing.
Secondly, the author places its poor performance in single factor, location. Without having field offices, the company can suffer even further due to lack of presence which is crucial to the company's targetted consumers. Some field offices might be doing better than others. It can be that the field research before opening up an office might have been the issue the existing problem. To recommend that closing down the company's all field offices is too sweep a generalization. If the author provided performances of each field offices, the statement can have been more convincing. Before making a hasty decision, further analysis on types of elements that have deprecated the profitability is essential.
Thirdly, even if the author provides with specific numbers as an evidence attached to the memorandum, the author makes logical flaw by simplying that centralization provides better supervision. Simply having one office at a single location does not gurantee better supervision. Same and better supervision can result in field offices as big centralized office supervision have possibility of growing hidden politics in addition to inefficient employee allocation to job. Having field office can have the same or better supervision than centralization.
The assumption underlying the conclusion need to be addressed because they are not fully substantiated. In addition, thorough analysis of each field office need to be conducted and reported to make better assessment of the recent decliding performances. In sum, the author's conclusion is not logically convincing as it stands.
"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." Discuss how well reasoned...etc. ]
The author of the memorandum argues that closing down the Apogee company's field offices and operating from a single location is the ticket to the profitability, thus success of the company. Although location might have factored into the company's performances, the author's argument lacks substances and hence the arugment is not logically convincing as it stands.
Firstly, the author fails to clarify the period in which the author is comparing it to. The author needs to state what kind of economic condition the Apogee company was in when it had its operations all in one place and what type of condition the company is operating in today. It might be possible that the economic condition when the Apogee company prospered was during economic boom which turned out to be a bubble. Substantiating the argument with specific numbers such as inflation rate, company default rate, and employment rate can make the arugment more convincing.
Secondly, the author places its poor performance in single factor, location. Without having field offices, the company can suffer even further due to lack of presence which is crucial to the company's targetted consumers. Some field offices might be doing better than others. It can be that the field research before opening up an office might have been the issue the existing problem. To recommend that closing down the company's all field offices is too sweep a generalization. If the author provided performances of each field offices, the statement can have been more convincing. Before making a hasty decision, further analysis on types of elements that have deprecated the profitability is essential.
Thirdly, even if the author provides with specific numbers as an evidence attached to the memorandum, the author makes logical flaw by simplying that centralization provides better supervision. Simply having one office at a single location does not gurantee better supervision. Same and better supervision can result in field offices as big centralized office supervision have possibility of growing hidden politics in addition to inefficient employee allocation to job. Having field office can have the same or better supervision than centralization.
The assumption underlying the conclusion need to be addressed because they are not fully substantiated. In addition, thorough analysis of each field office need to be conducted and reported to make better assessment of the recent decliding performances. In sum, the author's conclusion is not logically convincing as it stands.
