"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 argument above states that Apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. The above statement is flawed because it fails to mention several key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the statement is based on questionable assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that shifting the operations to one location is more profitable than having offices in different locations. This statement is a stretch as it assumes one strategy which worked well in the past will also be successful in current scenario. For example, if a transport company stops operation from different locations than there will be loss of business to this company. Clearly, the statement does not mention the nature of business done by Apogee company.The argument could have been much clearer if explicitly stated the nature of business carried out by Apogee company.
Second, the argument claims that centralization would improve the profitability by cutting costs.This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between cutting costs and profitability. This can be more clearly explained and justified if the it can be shown that operating costs of different locations are what percentage of the profits made by the company.If the argument had provided evidence that operating costs of different field offices incorporated larger percentage of the profits then argument would have been lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to mention how centralization would help the company to maintain better supervision of its employees. Without convincing answer to this question,one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions the all the relevant facts about the cost and profitability.In order to assess the merits of a such a decision, it essential to have full knowledge about the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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 argument above states that Apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. The above statement is flawed because it fails to mention several key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the statement is based on questionable assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that shifting the operations to one location is more profitable than having offices in different locations. This statement is a stretch as it assumes one strategy which worked well in the past will also be successful in current scenario. For example, if a transport company stops operation from different locations than there will be loss of business to this company. Clearly, the statement does not mention the nature of business done by Apogee company.The argument could have been much clearer if explicitly stated the nature of business carried out by Apogee company.
Second, the argument claims that centralization would improve the profitability by cutting costs.This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between cutting costs and profitability. This can be more clearly explained and justified if the it can be shown that operating costs of different locations are what percentage of the profits made by the company.If the argument had provided evidence that operating costs of different field offices incorporated larger percentage of the profits then argument would have been lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to mention how centralization would help the company to maintain better supervision of its employees. Without convincing answer to this question,one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions the all the relevant facts about the cost and profitability.In order to assess the merits of a such a decision, it essential to have full knowledge about the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
