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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
RoughBook
Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Last visit: 23 Mar 2021
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: ISB'22 (A) Schulich Sept '23 Tepper '23
GMAT 1: 630 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.13
15 Jan 2020, 11:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA 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.
Response:
The argument claims that the Apogee Company, when had its all operations in one location, was more profitable than it is today and thus, it should consider moving to a single location again. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. It 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 closing down of its field offices and conducting all its operations from a single location won't affect the operations and businesses which Apogee Company is already conducting. This statement is a stretch as it does not take into account the current scenario of operations, clients, businesses and employees. Furthermore, the argument assumes that a single location is readily available and also is unable to reflect on the cost of relocating to a single location. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the business would not be affected and commented on the cost of relocation.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company has become less profitable because of the operations at multiple locations. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the only reason for less profitability is operations. To illustrate, OYO rooms, a hoteliere business, became less profitable because of the exapansion, but centralization would have hampered their growth. While, in the case of Apogee Company there could be various factors such as the cost of the services over the period of time, the prices of the products/services or company's marketshare for the fall in profits of the company. However, we can not deny that centraliztion would cut the cost but it does not assure more profitability. In fact, it is not at all clear how all these fact
If the argument had provided evidence that costs of operations have not increased or prices have not changed then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument also claims that centralization will help company have better supervision of all employees. From this statement it is again unclear how the centralization will help company in better supervision. A substantial proof either from the company's own experience or an example from other company should be provided. Without convincing evidences, 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 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 decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case about the current cost, prices, marketshare, and business. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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.
Response:
The argument claims that the Apogee Company, when had its all operations in one location, was more profitable than it is today and thus, it should consider moving to a single location again. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. It 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 closing down of its field offices and conducting all its operations from a single location won't affect the operations and businesses which Apogee Company is already conducting. This statement is a stretch as it does not take into account the current scenario of operations, clients, businesses and employees. Furthermore, the argument assumes that a single location is readily available and also is unable to reflect on the cost of relocating to a single location. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the business would not be affected and commented on the cost of relocation.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company has become less profitable because of the operations at multiple locations. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the only reason for less profitability is operations. To illustrate, OYO rooms, a hoteliere business, became less profitable because of the exapansion, but centralization would have hampered their growth. While, in the case of Apogee Company there could be various factors such as the cost of the services over the period of time, the prices of the products/services or company's marketshare for the fall in profits of the company. However, we can not deny that centraliztion would cut the cost but it does not assure more profitability. In fact, it is not at all clear how all these fact
If the argument had provided evidence that costs of operations have not increased or prices have not changed then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument also claims that centralization will help company have better supervision of all employees. From this statement it is again unclear how the centralization will help company in better supervision. A substantial proof either from the company's own experience or an example from other company should be provided. Without convincing evidences, 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 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 decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case about the current cost, prices, marketshare, and business. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
16 Jan 2020, 01:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
RoughBook - Welcome to GMAT Club! I believe your AWA attempt is quite good and such an essay could very well fetch you a score above 5 on the real GMAT. Please make sure to proofread your writing for a couple of minutes to remove the obvious errors and spelling mistakes. All the best.
RoughBook
Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Last visit: 23 Mar 2021
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: ISB'22 (A) Schulich Sept '23 Tepper '23
GMAT 1: 630 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.13
17 Jan 2020, 07:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
thanks for the evaluation. 
