Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
|
|
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.
15 Sep 2020, 10:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please help me rate my practice AWA
“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.”
---------- Answer ---------------
The argument claims that, in order to improve profitability by cutting costs and better employee supervision, Apogee Company should close down its field offices and operate from a single location. Supposedly, this argument is sustained by the fact that the company was more profitable when it had all operations in the same location. However, there are a series of flawed assumptions in the argument and the example given may not be accurate to illustrate the company’s current situation. Hence, this argument is weak in its construction.
Firstly, it is implicitly assumed that one of the reasons for the lower profitability is the lack of supervision on the company’s employees. However, the author fails to present evidence for this assumption. It is not clear that better supervision will effectively raise company’s profits and that having all employees in the same place will collaborate in this.
Secondly, the author believes that by closing down field offices the company´s profits will raise. Nevertheless, we do not know if field offices are necessary for the company to sell its products. Maybe, if field offices are shut down, the company will not be able to sell the same amount of products that it is selling right now, and so, the cost reduction will not be enough to offset the drop in revenues, thereby lowering profits.
Finally, the example given in the argument compares the situation of the company in the past with its actual state. This comparison is not necessarily accurate, since there may be different factors affecting the company other than the number of locations where it is present. For example, the company may be facing a new competitor, which might be the main cause of the lower profits, and this has nothing to do with the number of locations.
In conclusion, the argument presented is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The decision to close Apogee Company’s field offices should be further analyzed and different alternatives should be considered in order to improve profitability.
“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.”
---------- Answer ---------------
The argument claims that, in order to improve profitability by cutting costs and better employee supervision, Apogee Company should close down its field offices and operate from a single location. Supposedly, this argument is sustained by the fact that the company was more profitable when it had all operations in the same location. However, there are a series of flawed assumptions in the argument and the example given may not be accurate to illustrate the company’s current situation. Hence, this argument is weak in its construction.
Firstly, it is implicitly assumed that one of the reasons for the lower profitability is the lack of supervision on the company’s employees. However, the author fails to present evidence for this assumption. It is not clear that better supervision will effectively raise company’s profits and that having all employees in the same place will collaborate in this.
Secondly, the author believes that by closing down field offices the company´s profits will raise. Nevertheless, we do not know if field offices are necessary for the company to sell its products. Maybe, if field offices are shut down, the company will not be able to sell the same amount of products that it is selling right now, and so, the cost reduction will not be enough to offset the drop in revenues, thereby lowering profits.
Finally, the example given in the argument compares the situation of the company in the past with its actual state. This comparison is not necessarily accurate, since there may be different factors affecting the company other than the number of locations where it is present. For example, the company may be facing a new competitor, which might be the main cause of the lower profits, and this has nothing to do with the number of locations.
In conclusion, the argument presented is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The decision to close Apogee Company’s field offices should be further analyzed and different alternatives should be considered in order to improve profitability.
Moderators:
