Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jan 1911:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions
Jan 1810:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
In this video, we talked to Rishi, an ambitious Indian student who successfully secured admission into HEC Paris and ESSEC Business School, two of the top Masters in Management (MiM) programs in Europe.- Jan 20
12:01 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
On Monday the 20th GMAT Club Tests will be Absolutely Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PST - Jan 20
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Join us for an inspiring talk with Dhruvi, an ambitious Indian student who secured admission to Imperial College London's prestigious Masters in Management (MiM) program. In this podcast, Dhruvi shares her candid journey... - Jan 21
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
If you're aiming for top MBA programs like Stanford, Harvard, or Wharton, this video is your ultimate guide to crafting a standout application that B-schools can't ignore! We'll walk you through: - Jan 22
08:00 AM PST
-09:00 AM PST
In this video, two MBA interview experts and a communications coach holds a mock interview of a prospective MBA applicant. The experts assess the responses of the applicant on important interview questions and provide their feedback. 
Jan 2410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
The Target Test Prep team is proud to introduce GMAT OnDemand, a video course created by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder and CEO, designed to provide you with everything you need to master the GMAT and achieve your score goals.- Jan 25
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
freekyguy007
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
Last visit: 27 Mar 2018
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Rotman '17
Products:
25 Aug 2016, 08:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question-------------
“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."
Answer--------------- (440 words, 28 minutes)
The argument states that the ‘Apogee’ Company should shut down all its field offices at various locations and conduct all its operations from a central location, the way it used to do earlier, to increase its profitability to former level. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
The conclusion relies on certain assumptions for which there is no solid evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws in it.
Firstly, the argument states that conducting all the operations of the company from a single location would increase the profitability and bring it to that level when all the operation of the company were unified and conducted form a central location. This statement is a stretch because the argument does not state whether the company has enough resources for such a large scale restructuring. Furthermore, basing such crucial decision on the assumption stated in the first line is not a wise mans’ move. Detailed analysis of the environmental and market conditions and majority shareholder and board of director approval is required for any form of organizational restructuring. Clearly the argument does not mention any of these facts and is thus incomplete in its conclusion. The argument would have been much clearer if it had mentioned realistic reasons for restructuring the organization.
Secondly, the argument claims that moving all the operations of the company to one location would help in reduction of costs and maintain better supervision of employees. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not explain the procedure, or for the sake of brevity, the outline of the procedure by which the company aims to reduce costs, increase employee supervision and consequently improve profitability. If the argument had provided a solid and realistic action plan, the result of which would be increased profitability with reduced costs then that would have made the argument a lot more convincing.
Finally, expansion is a necessary part of any business, no matter how small or how large the scale of operations may be.
By conduction all the operations from one location instead of spreading out more field offices in a structured and organized manner the premise of the argument presents a counterintuitive perspective to conventional successful business theory. With these assumptions presented by the argument, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking rather than substantial evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened is the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
“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."
Answer--------------- (440 words, 28 minutes)
The argument states that the ‘Apogee’ Company should shut down all its field offices at various locations and conduct all its operations from a central location, the way it used to do earlier, to increase its profitability to former level. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
The conclusion relies on certain assumptions for which there is no solid evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws in it.
Firstly, the argument states that conducting all the operations of the company from a single location would increase the profitability and bring it to that level when all the operation of the company were unified and conducted form a central location. This statement is a stretch because the argument does not state whether the company has enough resources for such a large scale restructuring. Furthermore, basing such crucial decision on the assumption stated in the first line is not a wise mans’ move. Detailed analysis of the environmental and market conditions and majority shareholder and board of director approval is required for any form of organizational restructuring. Clearly the argument does not mention any of these facts and is thus incomplete in its conclusion. The argument would have been much clearer if it had mentioned realistic reasons for restructuring the organization.
Secondly, the argument claims that moving all the operations of the company to one location would help in reduction of costs and maintain better supervision of employees. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not explain the procedure, or for the sake of brevity, the outline of the procedure by which the company aims to reduce costs, increase employee supervision and consequently improve profitability. If the argument had provided a solid and realistic action plan, the result of which would be increased profitability with reduced costs then that would have made the argument a lot more convincing.
Finally, expansion is a necessary part of any business, no matter how small or how large the scale of operations may be.
By conduction all the operations from one location instead of spreading out more field offices in a structured and organized manner the premise of the argument presents a counterintuitive perspective to conventional successful business theory. With these assumptions presented by the argument, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking rather than substantial evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened is the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
07 Oct 2019, 11:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, would be great to receive some pointers on my AWA. I used chinesburned's template.
Thanks!
"The argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company’s operations would lead to better profitability due to cost cuts and help Apogee Company maintain better supervision of all its employees. The company states that when all its operations were based out of one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and had several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that centralization will lead to profitability because it cut costs. This statement is a stretch and cannot be substantiated in any way. It isn’t supported with any data or projections. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities reduced their costs by decentralizing their operations. For example, Dish corporation, a top accounting firm in United States of America, is an organization which decentralized its operations to the capital of each state instead of having all its employees work from New York. This benefited the company in serving its customers all over the country readily and without any delays which led to increased business. The company didn’t have to maintain a large head office to house all its employees under one roof which saved the company from having majority of its funds blocked in rent. The employees had greater job satisfaction as those who were not from New York City, were able to choose the offices in their home state and small teams with a designated manager made operations smoother. All these factors led to a greater profitability for Dish. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how centralization of operations would lead to an overall minimized cost.
Second the argument claims that centralization will lead to better supervision of all employees. This again is a very weak and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between quality of supervision and centralization of operations. In, fact the argument does not even state the quality of its supervision of employees when Apogee Corporation had all its operations in one location, nor does it state the quality of its supervision of employees at the currently maintained various locations. If any such correlation had been shown between employee supervision and centralization of operations, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that decentralization led to poor employee supervision, the argument could have been strengthened further.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company should close its field offices and conduct operations from a single location. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how centralized operations are better than decentralized operations. Without convincing and supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where currently centralization of operations has done a great job, one is left with the impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."
Thanks!
"The argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company’s operations would lead to better profitability due to cost cuts and help Apogee Company maintain better supervision of all its employees. The company states that when all its operations were based out of one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and had several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that centralization will lead to profitability because it cut costs. This statement is a stretch and cannot be substantiated in any way. It isn’t supported with any data or projections. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities reduced their costs by decentralizing their operations. For example, Dish corporation, a top accounting firm in United States of America, is an organization which decentralized its operations to the capital of each state instead of having all its employees work from New York. This benefited the company in serving its customers all over the country readily and without any delays which led to increased business. The company didn’t have to maintain a large head office to house all its employees under one roof which saved the company from having majority of its funds blocked in rent. The employees had greater job satisfaction as those who were not from New York City, were able to choose the offices in their home state and small teams with a designated manager made operations smoother. All these factors led to a greater profitability for Dish. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how centralization of operations would lead to an overall minimized cost.
Second the argument claims that centralization will lead to better supervision of all employees. This again is a very weak and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between quality of supervision and centralization of operations. In, fact the argument does not even state the quality of its supervision of employees when Apogee Corporation had all its operations in one location, nor does it state the quality of its supervision of employees at the currently maintained various locations. If any such correlation had been shown between employee supervision and centralization of operations, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that decentralization led to poor employee supervision, the argument could have been strengthened further.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company should close its field offices and conduct operations from a single location. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how centralized operations are better than decentralized operations. Without convincing and supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where currently centralization of operations has done a great job, one is left with the impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."
Moderators:
