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
13 May 2018, 23:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA PRACTICE #2
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.
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.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument presented by the business department is that Apogee Company was more profitable when all its operations were at a single location. So, centralising the company’s operations would reduce costs and ensure better supervision of employees and thus, would improve profitability. The argument is flawed due to several reasons as pointed below.
First, profitability is dependent on two factors, costs and revenue. Cutting costs alone cannot ensure greater profits unless an analysis of revenue has been done for all the locations where the company has operations.
Second, location wise analysis is not given for costs and revenue in the present scenario. It might be possible that the only revenue the company is earning is due to the field locations and not the base location.
Third, if decentralised operations and drop in profitability are taking place at the same time, it does not mean decentralisation is causing the drop in profitability unless information and analysis is provided for other factors involved. Say, 5 years ago, the company had centralised operation and it was more profitable than present day but 5 years ago, there was no market rival in their field of operation of the company. So, the cause of lower profitability in the present context may be market competition and not operating costs of field offices.
Fourth, it has been assumed that better supervision of employees will lead to higher profitability. Only if employee negligence is the cause of dipping profits, this strategy will work. Since, no evidence has been given in support of the argument; this may or may not help increase profitability.
Fifth, a comparison has not been provided between the cost of operation of field offices and the cost of employees travelling to field locations to facilitate the work. It might turn out that regular travelling to field locations is more costly than the cost of operation of field offices. In that case, maintaining the operations at the field offices is a better course of action to take.
-Please rate the overall AWA.
-Point out any flawed arguments that I may have given and any grammatical or structure errors.
-Review the words used and tell me if that is fine.
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.
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.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument presented by the business department is that Apogee Company was more profitable when all its operations were at a single location. So, centralising the company’s operations would reduce costs and ensure better supervision of employees and thus, would improve profitability. The argument is flawed due to several reasons as pointed below.
First, profitability is dependent on two factors, costs and revenue. Cutting costs alone cannot ensure greater profits unless an analysis of revenue has been done for all the locations where the company has operations.
Second, location wise analysis is not given for costs and revenue in the present scenario. It might be possible that the only revenue the company is earning is due to the field locations and not the base location.
Third, if decentralised operations and drop in profitability are taking place at the same time, it does not mean decentralisation is causing the drop in profitability unless information and analysis is provided for other factors involved. Say, 5 years ago, the company had centralised operation and it was more profitable than present day but 5 years ago, there was no market rival in their field of operation of the company. So, the cause of lower profitability in the present context may be market competition and not operating costs of field offices.
Fourth, it has been assumed that better supervision of employees will lead to higher profitability. Only if employee negligence is the cause of dipping profits, this strategy will work. Since, no evidence has been given in support of the argument; this may or may not help increase profitability.
Fifth, a comparison has not been provided between the cost of operation of field offices and the cost of employees travelling to field locations to facilitate the work. It might turn out that regular travelling to field locations is more costly than the cost of operation of field offices. In that case, maintaining the operations at the field offices is a better course of action to take.
-Please rate the overall AWA.
-Point out any flawed arguments that I may have given and any grammatical or structure errors.
-Review the words used and tell me if that is fine.
Moderators:
188 posts
