|
|
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.
13 Jan 2021, 22:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
In this argument, the author claims that Apogee Company is facing less profit than previous time due to its more branches. The conclusion cited that, they should close all other offices so they can cut extra costs and can maintain better profit margin. However, this argument is flawed because it fails to supply sufficient support in favor of the author’s conclusion.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that if the company close all other branches, they can cut extra costs and earn more profit. But this assumption questionable because, there are many other ways by which the company can increase its profit. Such as, a very well-known company named Kohinoor Cosmetics once launched a talcum powder which was very popular at the beginning time but over the time its popularity had go down because they had not improved the product quality according to the new generation so the company had to stopped its production. On the other side, the company’s popularity was gaining and were earning more profits by their other products. Hence, the company should concern about their product quality, production cost, promoting polices rather than counting branch numbers.
Secondly, the author also implies that the company had gained more profit when they had only one office. But this assumption is misleading the information because earning profit is more about the product and service quality which they are providing. However, if they are more curious about the location rather than any other fact, it may be because they had more environment friendly location when they had only one office but now, they had chosen the wrong location for the new places. Therefore, it will not be a good decision if they close their other filed offices without examine the facts, at most they can do is shifting the branches according to the market demand.
In light of above unsubstantiated assumption and poor evidence, the argument is flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions the factors of the less profit. Also, maybe they are gaining less profit than previous time due to less environment friendly location. Nevertheless, if the aforementioned concerns are not addressed the argument will remain unconvincing.
“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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
In this argument, the author claims that Apogee Company is facing less profit than previous time due to its more branches. The conclusion cited that, they should close all other offices so they can cut extra costs and can maintain better profit margin. However, this argument is flawed because it fails to supply sufficient support in favor of the author’s conclusion.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that if the company close all other branches, they can cut extra costs and earn more profit. But this assumption questionable because, there are many other ways by which the company can increase its profit. Such as, a very well-known company named Kohinoor Cosmetics once launched a talcum powder which was very popular at the beginning time but over the time its popularity had go down because they had not improved the product quality according to the new generation so the company had to stopped its production. On the other side, the company’s popularity was gaining and were earning more profits by their other products. Hence, the company should concern about their product quality, production cost, promoting polices rather than counting branch numbers.
Secondly, the author also implies that the company had gained more profit when they had only one office. But this assumption is misleading the information because earning profit is more about the product and service quality which they are providing. However, if they are more curious about the location rather than any other fact, it may be because they had more environment friendly location when they had only one office but now, they had chosen the wrong location for the new places. Therefore, it will not be a good decision if they close their other filed offices without examine the facts, at most they can do is shifting the branches according to the market demand.
In light of above unsubstantiated assumption and poor evidence, the argument is flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions the factors of the less profit. Also, maybe they are gaining less profit than previous time due to less environment friendly location. Nevertheless, if the aforementioned concerns are not addressed the argument will remain unconvincing.
Moderators:
188 posts
