Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 30 Aug 2016, 22:08

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Pls rate - Argument essay

### Please rate - Then I'll rate yours!

You may select 1 option
Author Message
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1713
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 89

Kudos [?]: 798 [0], given: 109

Pls rate - Argument essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2010, 13:17

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 indicates that Apogee Company produced more profits when its operations were concentrated in a specific location. Therefore, the author of the argument concludes that this company should close down its offices which are in different places and manage its operations in a single location. Consequently, this action would reduce the costs of the company and allow more supervision of the employees. This argument could seem very logic, but if we analyze more deeply, we will see that it is based on weak assumptions and doesn’t identify clear cause-effect relationships between the facts. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws, which are the following:First, the company was more profitable when it had all its operations centralized. In this point, the author doesn’t consider alternative variables that could explain why the company provided more profits during that period. An alternative explanation could be the monopoly which had the company during that period; because it was the only the company in the market, it profits were very high. If the author wanted to strength this point, he or she had to provide more evidence to identify the relation between centralized operations and profits.Second, the argument claims that centralization would result in a reduction of costs. This is not necessarily true. Probably, the company decentralized its operations because it needed more distribution points in different regions of the country: this would allow it to reduce its transportation and logistics costs. If the company centralized its business in a single location, there could be the risk that the company would have to spend more in multiple shippings to their markets. In this sense, the argument should demonstrate how the company would reduce costs if the management decides to close its field locations. Third, the author readily assumes that centralization would allow a better supervision of the employees. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. Probably, the employees of the company shouldn’t be in the location because their functions demand to work in the field or streets (i.e. salesmen have to go to neighborhoods to offer the products of the company). If this is the case, it would be irrelevant having the employees in a specific location because the company couldn’t supervise the employees directly. This argument would be better if the author provides more detail about the functions of the employees.In summary, as you can see the argument is unconvincing because doesn’t provide enough information to validate the assumptions that it presents. The author should provide more detail about the relationship cause-effect between profits and centralized operations. Also, he or she would have to provide more information about how centralization would help to reduce costs and improve employees supervision.

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 997
Location: Singapore
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 694 [0], given: 36

Re: Pls rate - Argument essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2010, 10:43
Aloha ! I am impressed How much time did you take to pull that ! You are arguing like an attorney LOLs.

I rate 5.5 or may be 6. close to 6 may be.
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Re: Pls rate - Argument essay   [#permalink] 20 Oct 2010, 10:43
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Pls rate my essay from GMAC argument pool 1 25 Dec 2015, 02:02
Please rate this Argument essay 5 01 Nov 2010, 18:54
Pls rate this Argument essay, then I'll rate YOURS! 3 14 Oct 2010, 13:44
Pls. rate - Analysis of Argument 3 21 Apr 2010, 00:00
pls evaluate argument essay 0 26 Dec 2009, 12:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by