|
|
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.
31 May 2016, 01:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi All, please help me to improve my essay and please rate it.
“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.”
The argument comparing two scenarios, one in which a company was conducting its operation from only one location and another in which company has number of centers at different location and it was conducting its normal operation through various location. The argument state that when company was conducting its operation from one location, it was more profitable than the other situation, thus, it should centralize its operation to gain more profit.
The argument omits some very important consideration that are necessary to get a 360 degree of the described scenario. The argument doesn’t provide substantive evidence to prove or even to support the main conclusion from the given premises. The argument has considered several assumption that may not necessarily apply to this situation. First, it is wrongly comparing two different timeframe, which could be years apart and what true in one year may not necessarily be true in another year, considering the rapid change in economy every day. Second, it arrives at the direct relationship between centralization and profitability without considering other factors that could be responsible for the provided outcome. Third, it readily assumes that centralization would lead to better supervision of all employee. Also, Centralization might not be a good idea if company is service based industry and employees need to be located in different place to reach easily to its customer.
The first issue to be addressed is timeframe. It is possible that when apogee company had all its operation in one location, economy of that particular time was very conductive for business environment. For instance, in 2008, all business was having losses because of recession so comparing it to year 2000 or before would not advisable to factor only one reason for profit maximization. It is also possible that when company was in nascent stage, it was having maximum profit and it reaches to a certain saturation point, once it developed a scale in industry.
Secondly, the argument mention a clear direct relationship between two parameter without taking account of all other factor that could be logical factors for profitability such as competitions, capital expenditure cost, performance of its employee, demand in the market, branding and marketing expenditure, strategic planning, decision taken by the management in respective years and spending power of its target customer in both situations. For example, when company was working in centralized mode, the marketing department of the company had taken a major initiative and organized a major event including a celebrity that lead to hike in sales and hence profitability. But in year, when company switches to expand its business and hence there was major cut in marketing budget, which lead to stagnancy in the market. This can be considered a temporary situation and once company rolls back to strengthen its marketing budget, sales and profitability will reach to its previous position. In this case, we can’t factor centralization as a reason for profitability.
Last issue to be addressed is whether it is possible to conduct business from one location. Without expanding its business to different cities and different locations, company is narrowing its reach and it might be possible that their target audience will not be able to reach out. For example, if a company is selling laptop, and it is not making service center available to different location, customer will not be considering to buy laptop from the company factoring future service and maintenance issues.
In conclusion, while company has increased its profitability by centralization, the argument doesn’t substantiate that. A full description of the economy at both times, cost expenditure in different department, relative performance of its competitors and other contributing factors would prove a substantive evidence to prove that there is a direct link between centralization and profitability. Without all these information, argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Hi All, please help me to improve my essay and please rate it.
“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.”
The argument comparing two scenarios, one in which a company was conducting its operation from only one location and another in which company has number of centers at different location and it was conducting its normal operation through various location. The argument state that when company was conducting its operation from one location, it was more profitable than the other situation, thus, it should centralize its operation to gain more profit.
The argument omits some very important consideration that are necessary to get a 360 degree of the described scenario. The argument doesn’t provide substantive evidence to prove or even to support the main conclusion from the given premises. The argument has considered several assumption that may not necessarily apply to this situation. First, it is wrongly comparing two different timeframe, which could be years apart and what true in one year may not necessarily be true in another year, considering the rapid change in economy every day. Second, it arrives at the direct relationship between centralization and profitability without considering other factors that could be responsible for the provided outcome. Third, it readily assumes that centralization would lead to better supervision of all employee. Also, Centralization might not be a good idea if company is service based industry and employees need to be located in different place to reach easily to its customer.
The first issue to be addressed is timeframe. It is possible that when apogee company had all its operation in one location, economy of that particular time was very conductive for business environment. For instance, in 2008, all business was having losses because of recession so comparing it to year 2000 or before would not advisable to factor only one reason for profit maximization. It is also possible that when company was in nascent stage, it was having maximum profit and it reaches to a certain saturation point, once it developed a scale in industry.
Secondly, the argument mention a clear direct relationship between two parameter without taking account of all other factor that could be logical factors for profitability such as competitions, capital expenditure cost, performance of its employee, demand in the market, branding and marketing expenditure, strategic planning, decision taken by the management in respective years and spending power of its target customer in both situations. For example, when company was working in centralized mode, the marketing department of the company had taken a major initiative and organized a major event including a celebrity that lead to hike in sales and hence profitability. But in year, when company switches to expand its business and hence there was major cut in marketing budget, which lead to stagnancy in the market. This can be considered a temporary situation and once company rolls back to strengthen its marketing budget, sales and profitability will reach to its previous position. In this case, we can’t factor centralization as a reason for profitability.
Last issue to be addressed is whether it is possible to conduct business from one location. Without expanding its business to different cities and different locations, company is narrowing its reach and it might be possible that their target audience will not be able to reach out. For example, if a company is selling laptop, and it is not making service center available to different location, customer will not be considering to buy laptop from the company factoring future service and maintenance issues.
In conclusion, while company has increased its profitability by centralization, the argument doesn’t substantiate that. A full description of the economy at both times, cost expenditure in different department, relative performance of its competitors and other contributing factors would prove a substantive evidence to prove that there is a direct link between centralization and profitability. Without all these information, argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Hi All, please help me to improve my essay and please rate it.
Moderators:
188 posts
