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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
16 Oct 2017, 06:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
“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 claims that Apogee should make their company operations centralized so that it can make better profits and also cut some irrelevant costs. The argument is stated in such a way that it reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
The argument assumes that since Apogee had all the operations in one location previously and was profitable, it can use the same strategy now to get better profits. The statement is a bit of a stretch because it fails to consider the reason for which Apogee changed their operations strategy in the first place. The market may be in recession right now or perhaps the initial cost of having all the operations at one place was too expensive for the company to handle. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the changeover to old strategy would cost the same as it did previously when Apogee had all operation from one location.
The argument also claims that centralization of all operations would make employers life happy because it will be easier for them to manage and coordinate with the employees. This is again a weak and unexpected claim as the argument doesn’t demonstrate any correlation between the need for all employees to be at the same place for better supervision. For example, car manufacturers have separate plants, one to make the interiors of the car, one for engine design, another for tires, so on and so forth. However, in the newspaper industry, the paper manufacturing, printing, ordering etc are all done in the same place because there is a need to coordinate unlike the manufacturing of a car. Since the argument doesn’t tell us the kind of industry Apogee is in it is really hard to tell which method is better off.
In conclusion the above argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthening if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, Apogee’s industry type, cost of shift of business location, etc. without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The argument claims that Apogee should make their company operations centralized so that it can make better profits and also cut some irrelevant costs. The argument is stated in such a way that it reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
The argument assumes that since Apogee had all the operations in one location previously and was profitable, it can use the same strategy now to get better profits. The statement is a bit of a stretch because it fails to consider the reason for which Apogee changed their operations strategy in the first place. The market may be in recession right now or perhaps the initial cost of having all the operations at one place was too expensive for the company to handle. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the changeover to old strategy would cost the same as it did previously when Apogee had all operation from one location.
The argument also claims that centralization of all operations would make employers life happy because it will be easier for them to manage and coordinate with the employees. This is again a weak and unexpected claim as the argument doesn’t demonstrate any correlation between the need for all employees to be at the same place for better supervision. For example, car manufacturers have separate plants, one to make the interiors of the car, one for engine design, another for tires, so on and so forth. However, in the newspaper industry, the paper manufacturing, printing, ordering etc are all done in the same place because there is a need to coordinate unlike the manufacturing of a car. Since the argument doesn’t tell us the kind of industry Apogee is in it is really hard to tell which method is better off.
In conclusion the above argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthening if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, Apogee’s industry type, cost of shift of business location, etc. without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
