Hi, please, rate my essay.

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 argument claims that the Apogee Company is showing lower profitability today and it is connected with the structure of organization. As the company aims to make its business more profitable, the Apogee Company has to cut costs by closing down its field offices. Stated in this way the argument doesn’t mention key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is not clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and incomplete.

Firstly, the statement that the company organization structure and its profitability are connected with each other claims without analysis of major factors. The author has to address causes why the Apogee used to be profitable and what has been changed. The profitability of the company is determined by a lot of factors such as politics, economics, society, and culture inside the Apogee. It is possible that the quality of the management or the attitude of the staff influence profits. If the decreasing of profits is connected with fast expansion to new regions then the decision to close field offices will impact on further growth and the company will be uncompetitive.

Secondly, the closure of field offices may increase costs. We can take the example of Google. It is a leading internet company. Google has opened a lot of offices around the world. They are supporting data servers, providing and promoting internet services in different regions. Some offices are showing lower profitability than the others but their closure will cause loss of the market share because the maintenance of equipment will cost very high, employees will spend much money and time to transcontinental flights and there will be complications with understanding of local culture. The customers will prefer to have business with a local partner who will understand them better. Therefore the opposite action such as opening of new offices will be able to increase profits.

Finally, the suggestion is insufficient and knowledge about all key factors is necessary to take the right decision. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and is open to debate.



Thank you!!!