Joined: 25 Jan 2013
Concentration: Finance, Other
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
, given: 12
PLEASE, rate my essay [#permalink]
08 Oct 2013, 07:32
Guys, I would be very glad if some of you could rate my essay.
“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.”
The argument claims that centralization of the operations of Apogee Company in a single location will improve its results because it is less profitable today, when its operations are conducted in more than one place, than at the time when all its operations were carried out in one location. To support this conclusion cites the prospective reduction of costs and improved supervision of employees as advantages of locating operations on a single place. Although the argument has some positive points, it is not sound and has important flaws. In the next few paragraphs I am going to reason and explain which flaws the argument has.
First, the argument brings, as a reason to support its conclusion, that the company was more profitable when all its operations were carried out in one location. This part of the argument is based on a questionable assumption: everything related to Apogee Company is the same that at this time, except for the location. Consequently the argument lacks to identify other possible reasons that could account for the changes in profits of the company. One could say that the product that Apogee Company sells is losing appeal on the market. Or could also be hold that completion has gain force, getting some of the sales that before corresponded to Apogee Company. For example, if Apogee “star” product is a walkman or a portable CD audio player, nothing can be done in order to increase profits.
Second, we know that the company had before all its operations in a single place and that now operates in more than one location. In this sense, the argument does not explain why this change was done and does not criticize why decision of beginning to operate in different places. Knowing this could help evaluate the argument, but without this knowledge, the argument is incomplete.
Finally, the argument forgets that in some cases to conduct operations in different places can benefit the companies in general. For example, it has some sense to keep the finance and marketing employees in such places as New York or Chicago, where there are a lot of professionals of these areas and most valuable people can be contracted.
In conclusion, the argument is based on a questionable assumption, is incomplete and does not consider that in some cases to operate in more than one location can be positive to companies. In order to improve the argument, making it more sound, it should be explained more particularly why in this case to relocate all operations of the company is positive and would increase profits, and, of course, it should not be based on assumptions that are questionable.