I found the argument to be unusually short and too vague. Don't expect this to be anywhere near to the real one on D day found this more involving to think about during a mock test.
Would really appreciate it if someone rated it.
'Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix'
In the argument the author has formed a position that a company with a core competency in a single product or service will be more efficient than diversified companies. The author notes that this can be concluded on the basis of the premise that no single company can do all types of business. However, such a narrow deduction of the author based on a wide generalization is hasty and unreasonable.
In forming the conclusion, the author has taken into account a few suppositions which may not hold true in the real world, causing the argument to be inaccurate and illogical.
Firstly, the author has explicitly stated that a company offering a single service or manufacturing a single product will be more efficient than companies offering various types of goods and services. The author has not accounted for other factors which could affect the company’s operating activities and in affect its efficiency such as the demand for a product or service, price of inputs among others. Change in any of these factors in respect of a particular offering could lead a diverse company to change its focus on any other product or service offered by the company while still maintain the overall efficiency in the firm. However, a single product company would not have such a course of action available for itself.
Further, the author in comparing the efficiency of companies based on their offerings and concluding that a single product company is more efficient has discounted the supposition that a diversified company offering different types of goods and services may be reaping economies of scale. In doing so, the diversified company would actually have a higher availability of resources at comparatively less cost. Accordingly, the diversified company could well be a more efficient company than a company offering a single service or producing a singular product.
In view of the above discussed flaws in the assumptions of the author, we can conclude that the main position of the author in the argument is weak and not well supported. The author could have strengthened his claim with adequate details and relevant comparisons.