Get Your AWA Reviewed & Graded by an Expert

Gary123,
Below is the review of your first essay.

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:
“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.


The argument claims that corporations should consider the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples (**) of leap of faith and poor reasoning. Further, the argument fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated. (V) The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that Helios would be a good location for new business since it has a lower than average unemployment rate even in the recent recession. This statement is a stretch and there is no further information to illustrate why this mean(S-V) Helios is an ideal location. In fact, in can be reasoned (V) (Sp) that the opposite may be true. If unemployment in Helios is low, then there may not be enough people seeking employment to fill the jobs that a new business would bring. The corporation then may have a difficult time in acquiring the needed talent.

Second, the argument claims that the historic opportunities for manufacturing jobs is (S-V) high in Helios. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as there is no correlation shown between opportunities that existed in the past, and what the future of the manufacturing industry in Helios holds. Furthermore, this is the first time manufacturing is being discussed, and there is no reason to think that the corporations looking for new business are even part of the manufacturing industry. The argument would be strengthened (V) if it had explained the correlation to the manufacturing industry.

Finally, the argument also mentions that Helios is focusing on research and development of innovative technologies. Once again, this shows no relevance to the needs of the corporations. If the argument had provided reasons to show why this statement is important, then the argument may have been more convincing. As presented, the argument sounds like more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence to support the claim.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing (V) It could be considerably strengthened if it had included all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, one must have full knowledge of all relevant information. In this case, the argument is missing the necessary information to evaluate the claim. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate

1. Grammar check:
1. To illustrate why this mean - mean is the wrong verb. It should be 'means'.
2. Opportunities for manufacturing jobs is --- opportunities are.
3. Typo/ Sp: In fact, in can be reasoned that-- 'in' should be "it'
4. (**) - leap of faith and poor reasoning--should be a leap of faith and poor reasoning.

These may be small mistakes for us. However, in Test Prep circles, these are considered serious. You may well lose points if you commit more than three errors. For your kind information, the other basic errors are the verb-tense forms, pronoun number gender, and person agreements
The use of avoidable passive voice- You could avoid passive voice and resort to active voice, as in
It could be evaluated - One can evaluate
In fact, in can be reasoned that. - In fact, one can reason that
The argument would be strengthened -- The author can strengthen the argument
The argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing -- The above-mentioned reasons flaw the argument and therefore, do not convince the audience.

Observations --- 1. The content and construction are good. Without the grammar mistakes and the avoidable passive voice issues, you may get a six rating. However, with those drawbacks, your final rating maybe 5.5.

However, I feel I would fail if I do not point out something in your essay. You have written it in a copybook style, hundreds of which, the examiners are likely to see every day. There is more of plain criticism than positive or constructive criticism, leave alone, creative appreciation. This is a problem these days. One should consciously get away from this stereotype.
In this case, I would see the point on R&D as a chance to make a positive point. The futuristic industries such as Artificial Intelligence, alternate energy development, and genomics are set to rule the world for the next few decades or even the century. By consciously inviting corporations from such industries, the City has rightly focused on prioritizing its agenda.

Such an appreciation after initial criticism will strike the examiner and enhance your standing and thereby your rating.
It might help to impress the Universities, which read your essay for whatever reason because they can now see you as one who can spot and innovate.

The takeaway: Of course, this may be too late for you now since you hardly have two days more, however. Therefore, carry on your with your style but be sure to correct your grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes, then be aware of the way you can use active voice over passive voice.
Best wishes.

Pl. pardon in mix up of names. I think this essay ls Gary's

breatheanddoit - here is the review

QUES) The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum:

“On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines last year filed
a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures. This means that although some 1
percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures, the overwhelming
majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear that a review of the
procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s
passengers.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.




ANS) The argument concludes that, a review of the airline’s baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s passengers. This conclusion is based on certain assumptions for which no reasoning has been provided. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument falsely assumes that, 1 percent of passengers who travelled on Avia Airlines are the complete set of customers who were dissatisfied about the Airlines baggage-handling procedure. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. This makes the argument far-fetched since, there exists a possibility that the other 99 percent could’ve been displeased with the baggage-handling procedure, but never report it. In order to build a stronger argument, the author could’ve provided evidence pointing towards the 99 percent of customers being satisfied with the service.

Secondly, the author fails to mention how grieve the 1 percent complaints are, with respect to the company and its competitors. For instance, if its competitor has 100 ( say a 100) percent satisfaction rate, the customers might switch to another airline. Moreover, the author merely mentions the rate of complaints for the whole of last year but fails to shed light on several other key factors. For instance, how many total passengers were served and how many total flights. This information is of key importance since, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or 5 complaints per flight. The argument could’ve been stronger, had the above mentioned ambiguous statistics had been provided.

Lastly, the author falsely assumes that, there exists a high positive correlation between their primary goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s passengers and the satisfaction with the baggage-handling procedures. There could be various other various that might affect the consumers(put an apostrophe as consumers'") preference towards Avian. For instance, a priceconscious( hyphenate as price-conscicus) consumer might be looking for a cheaper flights, ( a cheaper flight) a vegan customer might consider the quality of meal to be primary importance so on and so forth. This argument could’ve been built stronger had the author conducted a market research and provided relevant data pointing towards its target audiences( put an apostrophe as audiences') priorities, (add here) he could have built the argument stronger.

In conclusion, in order to assess the merits of the situation provided, one must be provided with accurate data about all factors related to it. Had the author conducted a market research and cited evidence for its claims, the argument would have been stronger.


1. that, ---there is no need to put a comma after that. --- Grammar error.-Gr

2. say the company's goals rather than simply 'its'. 'Its' may be mistaken for the argument's or the review's goals -- Gr

3. is based-- is passive. make it as ' The author has based the conclusion on certain assumptions and has failed to provide any reasoning --- style error(style)
4. who travelled on Avia Airlines are the complete set of customers who ---Remove this part and read with the rest.-- wordiness

You can also use the American spelling 'traveled"

5. assumes that, --no need for a comma after that. -- Gr

6. since, --- no need for a comma after since - Gr

7. procedure - no need for a comma before but since there is no clause after the 'fanboys' -Gr

8. could have been and never report. Since the whole report is about a particular year's past happening, we must use past tense as in 'were displeased' and 'reported - G

9. could’ve been displeased-- abbreviations -- style

10. could've --- abbreviations --style

11. Customers being -- being is wrong as it is modifying customers -- make it as 'customers who were'-- Gr

12. grieve - say grievous -Gr


13. one must be provided is a passive voice; say the author must provide.-style

14. Lastly the author falsely assumes-- You are repeating this phrase ---style

15. could be various other various--- various other various is a typo I suppose. Probably you meant various other variables --- Gr

16. Had the author conducted a market research --This is a repetition. ---style

17. the argument would have been stronger ---say the author would have strengthened the argument immensely. -- Passive - style
18. -- A market research ---A noun like 'research' is not countable A market research is not correct. simply say market research.---Gr.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

General observations ---.

1. The construction and content are generally okay.
2. There is a tendency to use abbreviations often. This is 100% wrong in written language.
3. Please avoid passive voice when you can use an active voice.
4. In complex sentences, one should avoid using a comma before the start of the subordinate clause, if you place it at the end because there is no IC after the comma. If, however, the main clause falls at the end, one must use a comma before it because you are going to start an IC after the comma.
5. Avoid verbal repetitions of expressions. They instantly reveal a striking lack of variety.
6. practice writing the essay on a word-pad or a note pad. ( general suggestion)

Rating---5

Best wishes

Hi daagh, please give me your feedback!

The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:

“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The paragraph talks about the efficiency progression in which processing tasks becomes easier over time resulting in more efficient and less expensive.The author has given an example of printing during the period of 1970-1984. This example is meant to support the idea of the paragraph as well as the argument that follows it. In relation to food industry specifically, It mentioned that the company named, “Olympic Foods” has a long history in food processing and it argues that its history is the leading reason that will ensure its success in minimizing costs and maximizing profits.

Firstly, the argument here is about how the experience of Olympic Foods is an ensuring main factor of their future success in processing foods. Yet, the industry for processed foods is largely popular in our modern time, it doesn’t mean the Olympic Foods can be certain of their efficiency alone. The market is very large and filled with many competitors taking part of the processed food industry. I cannot expect that Olympic Foods will be able to minimize costs and maximize profits just because of their experience due to market shares and companies who might have been in the market longer than Olympic Foods. There are many ways of minimizing costs and maximizing profits, and it’s not guaranteed that only Olympic Foods will do them as the main purpose of a successful business is to minimize costs and maximize profits.

Secondly, the 25th birthday of Olympic Foods doesn’t seem too much of an outstanding issue. It’s true that it’s a long time, but not enough to say that that’s alone can be a factor in taking the business to more profits in the future. I think the author has failed to address that there is much more that goes into the success of a business. Though, experience is important, but it’s not everything and doesn’t equal success directly. I believe another factor that is even more important than experience and essential for any business at any time is its adaptability. A business that can adapt to the market needs and consumers’ opinions will be much more successful than just a food “processing experienced” company. For example, frozen foods at the supermarkets has been long known that its main idea is to serve those who don’t have time or have a very busy lifestyle and schedule. Although, that’s a fact, many experienced processing food companies have neglected the fact that more people are being aware of animals and their rights which led new companies to enter the market with vegetarian options, along with vegan options later on.

In conclusion, I think the argument given is weak and has many flaws. Business and large markets such as the food industry, specifically as processed food is not an easy market without the understanding of social needs and lifestyles. To think about this argument from a different perspective, two questions must be answered. First, is Olympic Foods aware of all external threats such as other companies trying to do the same strategy and even take over some market shares. Second, Is Olympic Foods willing to spend large sums of money on R&D to understand the societal needs? Upon the answer of these questions, I believe the argument can be strengthened.

hualsalam
Please find the review of your essay in the attachment

Hi daagh, please review my essay:

Question:

The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine.

The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it - even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.

My Essay:

The argument claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in the movie. The author of this argument has come to this conclusion based on the fact that Robin Good was paid a similar amount for earlier films, which have been financially successful. Stated this way, this argument is weak and unconvincing.

First, the argument assumes that casting Robin Hood in the forthcoming movie will make the movie financially succeed. By assuming this the argument fails to consider the various factors that contributed to the success of his earlier films. The other films, for example, could have a better script, action sequence, or comedy, anything that the like of family audience and kids would love to watch. It can be a reason that Robin Hood acts natural when it comes to action movies but nothing was mentioned about the forthcoming movie ‘3003’, which can strengthen the claim that paying Robin Hood several million dollars can maximize the producers profits.

In addition, the argument also states that the amount to be paid to Robin Good is far more money than any other person involved with the movie will make. This means that the budget of the movie will increase by several million dollars atleast if the producers decide to cast the actor. This will have definitely impact the profits as the movie should perform way better than say if the actor is not cast in it. The argument does not consider other expenses associated with casting a big actor. An actor of such a stature would require a private dressing room and a private caravan to rest. So the producers will end up spending more than the actor’s pay.

Finally, the argument concludes that producers are more likely to maximize the profits if they cast Robin Good. The argument fails to mention if the actor will have the lead role or a supporting role. People go to theatres to watch their favourite actor on the big screen. If their favourite actor only stars in a movie for few minutes, then not all people will watch the movie at a theatre as compared to when their favourite start is in the lead role. By missing this information, it is difficult to validate the conclusion that spending millions of dollars on Robin Good will actually maximize the profits for the producers.

In conclusion, this argument fails to compare the previous financially successful films with the forthcoming film by ignoring the various other factors that contributes to a film’s success. The argument could be strengthened if all the author mentions relevant information about the forthcoming movie.

anbk
Hi,
PFA a review of your essay. Please take care to note the suggestions.

best wishes

daagh

Thanks daagh , those are some valuable inputs. I will follow through up with that.

It is written in the proper pattern it should have. So, We highly appreciate that you did such good work.

Hi,
I am writing my GMAT exam in the next 2 days, so it would be really grateful if you could provide me with feedback on how I could improve my essay further.

Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.


People who wear eyeglasses often need stronger prescriptions over time. For example, a woman in her 40s began wearing glasses on the advice of an optometrist and, in just one year, required stronger lenses. Furthermore, eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems than do those who wear neither. Given that a typical eyeglass wearer buys expensive new glasses every two to three years, people considering corrective lenses should instead invest in an eye-strengthening program, which could save them thousands of dollars over their lifetimes.


Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Essay:
---------------------------------------------------------

The argument mentioned above that the people should invest on eye-strengthening program instead of corrective lenses is seriously flawed. The argument omits some concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. There are a few key assumptions made in the argument. The argument must consider other important factors as well without which the argument would be solely based on assumptions instead of facts.

Firstly, the argument is based on the generalization that the people who wear eyeglasses need stronger prescriptions over time and they invest a lot in corrective lenses. The example mentioned in the argument is about a woman in her 40's. Hence considering this example would make the argument flawed as the people wearing eyeglasses can be of different ages and gender. Age can be a very crucial factor on which the prescriptions could depend. A person who is at a higher age might require stronger lenses quicker than a person who is much younger.

Secondly, the argument states that eyeglass and contact lens users report more eye-related problems, but the argument fails to support the claim with the factual figures. It is quite possible that the people wearing eyeglasses report the eye-related problems more than the people who do not wear eyeglasses. The advantages and the dis-advantages of the eye-strengthening program must also be clearly mentioned. The argument must be able to answer the questions such as "How frequent would the user face an eye-related problem after the eye-strengthening program?" or "What is the lifespan of the eye-strengthening program?".

The argument just mentions a general statement that the eye-strengthening program would save thousands of dollars over lifetimes. But it fails to mention the cost required to maintain the eye after the program. The frequency for follow-ups is also crucial in understanding which case is better. Along with the above-mentioned points, the argument also fails to mention the side-effects caused by the eye-strengthening program and the age group for which this program is suitable.

Since the argument leaves out several key aspects, it is not sound or persuasive. If the argument included the points discussed above instead of solely basing the argument on the fact that it is better to invest in an eye-strengthening program than in corrective- lenses, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, It would be really helpful if you could let me know where this essay stands on a scale from 1 to 6.
Thanks

daagh

Would appreciate your feedback on my AWA. My test is on Monday morning, so if you could give me feedback before that, I would be grateful. Apologies for posting this at such short notice.
P.S: A score would be nice too

...............................................
The following appeared in an Excelsior Company memorandum.

The Excelsior Company plans to introduce its own brand of coffee. Since coffee is an expensive food item, and since there are already many established brands of coffee, the best way to gain customers for the Excelsior brand is to do what Superior, the leading coffee company, did when it introduced the newest brand in its line of coffees: conduct a temporary sales promotion that offers free samples, price reductions, and discount coupons for the new brand.

......................................
The argument asserts that the most effective strategy for Excelsior to acquire new customers would be through sales promotion, by offering free samples, price reductions and discount coupons, for the new brand. The argument is supported by the fact that this was an effective launch strategy for Superior, the market leader in the industry. However, the argument is based on multiple assumptions, highlighted below, which bring into question the validity of the recommendation.

The core assumption is that, since this worked for Superior, it would work for Excelsior. However, the memorandum itself states that this strategy worked for Superior's "newest brand", and that they had a pre-existing line of coffees. This implies that Superior had existing brand recognition which is likely to have been behind the success of the sales promotion. This is a perfect case of confusing correlation with causation. In order to establish a causal effect here, we would need more data, with respect to the use of sales promotions for launches by other coffee brands, that had no existing brand recognition.

Secondly, the argument states that coffee is an expensive food item, which is indicative of the fact that coffee drinkers do not constitute a particularly price-sensitive market segment. Therefore, the assumption that this market segment would consider a new brand, solely on the basis of it being free or discounted is far-fetched and questionable.

Finally, the memorandum questions the brand loyalty of coffee drinkers, by assuming that they would be willing to switch brands due to a promotion. Coffee tends to be an integral part of many people's daily routine and people may get accustomed to the taste of their specific brand.

To conclude, adopting a launch strategy simply because it was effective for a market leader with existing brand recognition would not be a sound business decision. While it is an indicator of potential effectiveness, the management of Excelsior should acquire competitor research data as recommended above. In addition to that, to address that other assumptions noted, they should carry out thorough market research into their target market segment, especially to address the correlation between price-sensitivity and promotion, as well as further study the brand switching habits of this segment.

Hi daagh

Can you kindly review my first shot at AWA. I will post a few more once I get your review on this.

The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:

“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument, as stated, is not watertight because the claim that costs go down as organizations learn how to do things better is substantiated by an example which is so open ended that it leaves a lot to reader's imagination. Moreover, the results of one industry are being extrapolated to a completely different industry without providing any basis for doing so.

Firstly, the argument claims that the principle holds true because, in the 14-year period, the cost and time has fell substantially. What must be evaluated is that what other factors, if any, could be responsible for this cost reduction. For example, it is possible that as colored pictures became more popular there was an increase in demand, and a number of film processing companies entered the competition, thus reducing the product cost. Furthermore, the argument must consider the possibility that it was the goal of capturing the market share that drove the industry to develop more efficient equipment, which lead to the reduction in cost and processing time and not just the passage of time.

Secondly, the argument assumes that what worked for one type of industry will definitely work for a completely different type of industry as well. The argument does not make an effort to bridge this gap by providing further evidence such as a reference to some other food processing company which has achieved the desired results in a similar span of time. It is also worth pointing out that the argument gives the impression that merely minimizing costs will maximize profits. This relationship is flawed as no information has been provided about how the 25-year experience will help the costs to be minimized. For example, have these 25-years increased the knowledge base of skilled workers necessary to reduce costs? Has this time period helped Olympic Foods develop more efficient equipment to process their frozen food? Etc.

The relationship between time and cost reduction/increased efficiency is presented as linear, as if the mere passage of time automatically helps industries achieve increased profitability. This and other logical gaps presented above leave plenty of room for improvement in the original argument. If the argument were to take into consideration these logical fallacies, it can be made more persuasive for the stockholders.

PFA the review
Also please open with Microsft word for seeing my comments on the side

Hello daagh! Thank you in advance for your feedback.

I know I'm under 500 words but I had trouble finding more content to fill in.

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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Answer

The writer of the memorandum suggests that the Apogee Company can improve profitability by centralizing all of its operations, on the basis that conducting all operations from a single location would cut costs and improve supervision of employees. This argument is weak and would not withstand a closer inspection. One would feel that the argument leaves many unanswered questions. Has the author considered the costs of upheaving the entire operational strategy? Is the company overlooking other operational mistakes that could contribute to the low profitability? Lastly, what exactly is meant by “profitability”; is it nominal or proportional?

Firstly, one notices the lack of information about the costs to implement the author’s recommendation. Closing down multiple locations would mean paying for possible severance of office-specific staff, penalties for ending leases before term end, capital losses on liquidated assets, etc. – not to mention any intangible costs such as loss of brand recognition. It could very well be that the setback from such a large operational strategy change will hurt the company at the end. If the author had addressed how the costs of implementation weigh against any potential benefits, then the argument would have been more convincing.

The next obvious question is whether the company has a comprehensive understanding of why profitability is lower than what it used to be. Complex operations have many moving parts and thus there could be many different reasons contributing to the lowered profitability. If the company investigates the different reasons, it could find more simple fixes than closing down the majority of its offices. Therefore, without understanding all the forces at play, the argument for centralization is rash and cannot be supported.

Finally, the definition of profitability is ambiguous. Consider this scenario: the Apogee Company, with one office, made annual profits of $100,000 at the ROI rate of 25%; in comparison, with its multiple companies it is able to report an ROI rate of only 15%, but the annual profit is in the nominal amount of $5 million. Why then, would a reasonable business owner or manager consider the latter a bad situation to be in? If the author’s perceived problem is not even a problem in the first place, then their argument is invalid and unsubstantiated.

In conclusion, it is not difficult for one to realize the author’s recommendation was fundamentally flawed. It does not consider the costs of implementation, other factors contributing to the company’s bottom line, nor the relevance of the dollar versus a percentage figure. In order to properly assess the merits of the author’s recommendation, one needs to have the necessary knowledge. Without a more comprehensive analysis of the above, the original argument cannot be supported as is and remains open to debate.

Answer

The writer of the memorandum suggests that the Apogee Company can improve profitability by centralizing all of its operations, on the basis that conducting all operations from a single location would cut costs and improve supervision of employees. This argument is weak and would not withstand a closer inspection. One would feel that the argument leaves many unanswered questions. Has the author considered the costs of upheaving the entire operational strategy? Is the company overlooking other operational mistakes that could contribute to the low profitability? Lastly, what exactly is meant by “profitability”; is it nominal or proportional?

Firstly, one notices the lack of information about the costs to implement the author’s recommendation. Closing down multiple locations would mean paying for possible severance of office-specific staff, penalties for ending leases before term end, capital losses on liquidated assets, etc. – not to mention any intangible costs such as loss of brand recognition. It could very well be that the setback from such a large operational strategy change will hurt the company at the end. If the author had addressed how the costs of implementation weigh against any potential benefits, then the argument would have been more convincing.

The next obvious question is whether the company has a comprehensive understanding of why profitability is lower than what it used to be. Complex operations have many moving parts and thus there could be many different reasons contributing to the lowered profitability. If the company investigates the different reasons, it could find more simple fixes than closing down the majority of its offices. Therefore, without understanding all the forces at play, the argument for centralization is rash and cannot be supported.

Finally, the definition of profitability is ambiguous. Consider this scenario: the Apogee Company, with one office, made annual profits of $100,000 at the ROI rate of 25%; in comparison, with its multiple companies it is able to report an ROI rate of only 15%, but the annual profit is in the nominal amount of $5 million. Why then, would a reasonable business owner or manager consider the latter a bad situation to be in? If the author’s perceived problem is not even a problem in the first place, then their argument is invalid and unsubstantiated.

In conclusion, it is not difficult for one to realize the author’s recommendation was fundamentally flawed. It does not consider the costs of implementation, other factors contributing to the company’s bottom line, nor the relevance of the dollar versus a percentage figure. In order to properly assess the merits of the author’s recommendation, one needs to have the necessary knowledge. Without a more comprehensive analysis of the above, the original argument cannot be supported as is and remains open to debate.

My initial reaction

450 words – not bad; you could just add one more interim paragraph giving an example of how another company (maybe even imaginary) which tried the same tactics miserably failed. Or you can elaborate on how the company got mixed up with absolute profits and profitability, both of which are vastly different.

Construction: is ok

Grammar; No problem.

Transitions; Could use more transition words, such as overall, in the long run, or all in all, befuddled, etc

You can end up saying that Apogee might very go into a review of its thinking and arrive at a more practical solution.

Content: is okay;

Rating 5.5 out of 6

Keep it up and good luck.

daagh

Hello, I wrote this AWA. Would you be able to evaluate it? Thanks.

Question:
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Answer:

The argument claims that the Apogee Company would benefit from increased profitability by closing down its operations in field offices and centralizing its activities in one single location. This argument is made on the premise that centralization improves the company’s bottom-line by reducing costs and improving employee supervision, while also making a note to a previous time when Apogee Company has had its operations in a single location. Stated in this way the argument manipulates and conveys a distorted view of the situation, by omitting several key factors and additional evidence to its premises. Therefore, the conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence, making the argument rather weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument readily assumed that Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today due to having its operations in a single location. However, the fact that its increased profitability coincided with the centralization of its operations doesn’t mean that the latter caused the former. For instance, it doesn’t mention the location in which the company was located. It can very well be that the profitability margins were larger in the aforementioned location compared to the rest of the country. Furthermore, the author fails to mention the actual drivers of the increased profitability. Surely, having a centralized operation had a financial effect, but how did that effect materialise? In addition to this, it also fails to mention the effect on productivity by having all employees in one space. Will this increase or decrease the efficiency of its employees? Without adding more detail to this premise, we cannot tie the centralization and profitability cause-effect relationship together.
Secondly, the argument is very ambiguous with regards to the actual time when Apogee Company had its operations in one location. For example, it is not all clear whether this happened 20 years ago or 2 years ago. The market dynamics might have changed considerably in the period that has passed between then and today. For example, the industry in which Apogee Company operates could have evolved from a scattered market, with large margins and few players, to a mature market, with low margins and many players. Therefore, without more information, we cannot come to a conclusion that the strategy applied then is valid today. Furthermore, it fails to mention the actual size of the company at the time. The company might have been much smaller, operating in only one location. On the one hand, with a smaller company, come lower costs in terms of marketing, HR and administration. On the other hand, with a larger company, revenues increase, but the margins might decrease due to the aforementioned costs rising. The argument does not mention the size of Apogee Company or whether it has plans to decrease its scale through the centralization. If the argument had provided evidence that market and company dynamics were similar between the two moments in time, this claim would have been much more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts related to the cause-effect relationship of centralization and increased profitability as well as evidence to the similarity in company and market dynamics between the two time periods.

Hi daagh
Hope you are well. Feedback would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
_________________________________________________________________________
Answer:

The argument claims that Apogee Company was more profitable earlier than it is today when it had all its operations in one location and recommends that the Apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument also fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that since the Apogee company had all its operation in one location, it was more profitable earlier than today. This statement is a stretch because it fails to provide the details of the government regulations prevalent earlier and the regulations in place now. For example, the government regulations in the past could have facilitated the high profitability as claimed in the argument, whereas in the current scheme of things, the government regulations are significantly reducing the profitability of the Apogee company. Clearly, the profitability of the company is a complex function which depends on not just the centralization of the operations but also on the government regulations. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the government regulations between the two periods of profitability have remained constant throughout.
Second, the argument draws an inference that the Apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the geographies of field offices and their overall profitability. To illustrate, the field offices in certain regions could be working more than their capacity or threshold and generating huge profit margins when compared against certain field offices in regions which do not enjoy a healthy workload. If the argument had provided evidence about the regional variation of profitability of individual field offices then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Although this statement might appear to be a logical conclusion of this extreme argument it fails to take extra information into account. The author does not give any indication about the nature of services of the Apogee company and its subsequent need for de-centralization of operations when it had high profitability. The author also fails to provide examples from other businesses where organizations in the same business as Apogee company have performed by centralization of their respective operations. Without unconvincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and 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, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

can you please check with NightBlade or BB regarding the procedure involved in evaluating the AWA? I am not sure whether I can review directly since some payment is involved.