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
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
This argument states that the Apogee Company should close down its branch offices and conduct all its operation from a single location because by closing other offices the company can cut cost and help to maintain better supervision of all employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that when the Apogee Company had all its operation in one location, it was more profitable than today. However, there are other assumptions that have not been considered in this argument. For example, the cost which Apogee needs to close down its offices and transfer it to one location should be more than having and operating offices in several locations. Moreover, transportation cost should be added to company’s cost. Also the company should be more supervised in one office than several offices which were not point out in the argument. Finally, in this argument one cannot find out when this experience, having one location instead several locations, has been happened and the sufficiency of this information for proving make more profit is questionable. It means that other factors helped the company at that time to make it more profitable which was not mentioned in the argument.
First issue which one can find out in this argument is that the costs that Apogee needs to close down its branches and transfer them to one location should be more than having and operating several offices. For instance, I was working in Alborz Tire Company and it had two branches which were far from each other, but if Alborz decided to close one of the branches it would have to pay a lot of money and pay a lot of expenses in order to transfer all the equipments to one place. Also at that time they consider that if the company had just one location all the employees should go to that location, they needed to pay for transportation cost more, because the company is responsible to provide facility for its employees, so without any exact economical analysis one cannot accept this assertion.
Another issue which was asserted in above argument is that the company in one location is more supervised than several branches, but one cannot find out sufficient data for proving this assertion. It means that there is not any data and information about this issue, so it is not convincing to accept this assertion.
Third issue which has not stated in the argument is that one cannot find out when this experience happened for the company in the past and the sufficient amount of information that having one location instead of a few branches is more profitable is questionable. It means that maybe at that time other factors helped company to make it more profitable such as hiring more professional employees. The proficiency of company is not just related to centralization of the company.
In conclusion, there are a lot of reasons that make this argument unconvincing due to lack of data which is based on the example from the past which has no significant relevance to the present situation of the company. On the whole the argument provides no evidence to convince reader that the Apogee Company should close its field offices and return to centralized location. In order to make this argument strength, the author should provide solid statistical or financial evidence how centralized organization will benefit the company. And also it would be helpful to cite definite facts that company profits went down after it opened many fields’ offices.