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
14 Aug 2020, 11:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
I have my Gmat attempt on 27th August. This is my first Awa can someone please grade it or tell me what changes I should make. It would be a very big help
Q: 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 . . . etc
ANS: The argument states that Apogee company had more profits when it was only in one location. It then suggests that Apogee should close all its branches and operate from one location in order to increase profits. The argument made is based on many assumptions and has some major flaws making it hard to evaluate. Some of the flaws in the argument is as follows
First, The argument assumes that the Apogee if closes all branch profits will rise. The problem with the argument is that it doesn’t consider many factors that are related to profit maximization. For example, Its not necessary that businesses that expand have less profits margin then during the times when they had only one branch. There are n numbers of evidence supporting the contrary that businesses that expand have more profits than those who doesn’t. Author also fails to consider the other scenarios that may have been causing the less profits of Apogee. In order to make this assumption author needed to provide some context of the past and present business of Apogee. If the context of Apogee could have been provided argument could have been better.
Second, Author assumes that combining the firms will lead to cost cutting. The problem with this assumption is that author fails to draw the links between combination of branches and cost cutting. This might not necessary be true. For example, In business diversification and division of departments have been seen as a great way to reduce cost for many industries. Author needed to tell that how combination leads to cost cutting. The important link between cost cutting and combination of the firm are missing in the arguments making it difficult to evaluate.
Finally, Author assumes that centralization leads to better supervision of employees. The problem with this assumption is that it based on the premise that centralization leads to more control but in business world we have seen different examples of centralization of employees made lead to internal conflicts and how it becomes difficult for managers to supervise so many employees rather than one employee. Important evidence of how easy it is for managers to handle centralized employees is missing from the argument. This link was very important and author misses it completely. If the author could have provided the link the argument could have been a lot more convincing
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above mentioned reason and therefore is unconvincing. It could have been strengthened if author could have provided necessary context and draw necessary link between Centralization and profit maximization.
I have my Gmat attempt on 27th August. This is my first Awa can someone please grade it or tell me what changes I should make. It would be a very big help
Q: 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 . . . etc
ANS: The argument states that Apogee company had more profits when it was only in one location. It then suggests that Apogee should close all its branches and operate from one location in order to increase profits. The argument made is based on many assumptions and has some major flaws making it hard to evaluate. Some of the flaws in the argument is as follows
First, The argument assumes that the Apogee if closes all branch profits will rise. The problem with the argument is that it doesn’t consider many factors that are related to profit maximization. For example, Its not necessary that businesses that expand have less profits margin then during the times when they had only one branch. There are n numbers of evidence supporting the contrary that businesses that expand have more profits than those who doesn’t. Author also fails to consider the other scenarios that may have been causing the less profits of Apogee. In order to make this assumption author needed to provide some context of the past and present business of Apogee. If the context of Apogee could have been provided argument could have been better.
Second, Author assumes that combining the firms will lead to cost cutting. The problem with this assumption is that author fails to draw the links between combination of branches and cost cutting. This might not necessary be true. For example, In business diversification and division of departments have been seen as a great way to reduce cost for many industries. Author needed to tell that how combination leads to cost cutting. The important link between cost cutting and combination of the firm are missing in the arguments making it difficult to evaluate.
Finally, Author assumes that centralization leads to better supervision of employees. The problem with this assumption is that it based on the premise that centralization leads to more control but in business world we have seen different examples of centralization of employees made lead to internal conflicts and how it becomes difficult for managers to supervise so many employees rather than one employee. Important evidence of how easy it is for managers to handle centralized employees is missing from the argument. This link was very important and author misses it completely. If the author could have provided the link the argument could have been a lot more convincing
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above mentioned reason and therefore is unconvincing. It could have been strengthened if author could have provided necessary context and draw necessary link between Centralization and profit maximization.
Moderators:
189 posts
