GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 14 Oct 2019, 11:34

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Please rate my AWA essay: Apogee company

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2013
Posts: 4

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2013, 06:37
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”

The argument that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, the author not only fails to take into account that there may be factors other than location involved in supporting the company's profits but also fails to provide any information about the location of market. Furthermore, the author also fails to take under consideration the result of closing its field offices.

Firstly, the author provides no confirmation that the location is the only factor which supports the profit of the company. That is, there is no evidence provided about any other factors involved because of which the company had made profits. For instance, it may be that the employees were better than today or market position was better than in the current scenario.

Secondly, no information is provided about the location of the market, whether it is dense at a single place or distributed. If the market is distributed, setting up offices in the major market locations may be more profitable than condensing it into a single place.
Thirdly, the author fails to consider that unemployment would result if the company were to centralize, as, keeping more than one manager is definitely out of case if costs have to be cut down.

The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating that location was the only factor when the company was centralized. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Posts: 71
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V36
GPA: 3.95
WE: Research (Telecommunications)

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2013, 06:56
2
ShreyaMotwani wrote:
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”

The argument that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, the author not only fails to take into account that there may be factors other than location involved in supporting the company's profits but also fails to provide any information about the location of market. Furthermore, the author also fails to take under consideration the result of closing its field offices.

Firstly, the author provides no confirmation that the location is the only factor which supports the profit of the company. That is, there is no evidence provided about any other factors involved because of which the company had made profits. For instance, it may be that the employees were better than today or market position was better than in the current scenario.

Secondly, no information is provided about the location of the market, whether it is dense at a single place or distributed. If the market is distributed, setting up offices in the major market locations may be more profitable than condensing it into a single place.
Thirdly, the author fails to consider that unemployment would result if the company were to centralize, as, keeping more than one manager is definitely out of case if costs have to be cut down.

The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating that location was the only factor when the company was centralized. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.

Hi ShreyaMotwani,

I would rate it to 4.
Some pointers:
1. Explain the flaws
2. If any assumptions are not clear
3. If more evidence is required
4. Whether some points in the argument are actually valid and can further be investigated
5. Some examples to prove all this.

Good luck
Please press KUDOS button on the left, if my post was of help ..
_________________
Please press KUDOS if my post helped !!
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2013
Posts: 4

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2013, 07:17
crackgmatg wrote:
ShreyaMotwani wrote:
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”

The argument that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, the author not only fails to take into account that there may be factors other than location involved in supporting the company's profits but also fails to provide any information about the location of market. Furthermore, the author also fails to take under consideration the result of closing its field offices.

Firstly, the author provides no confirmation that the location is the only factor which supports the profit of the company. That is, there is no evidence provided about any other factors involved because of which the company had made profits. For instance, it may be that the employees were better than today or market position was better than in the current scenario.

Secondly, no information is provided about the location of the market, whether it is dense at a single place or distributed. If the market is distributed, setting up offices in the major market locations may be more profitable than condensing it into a single place.
Thirdly, the author fails to consider that unemployment would result if the company were to centralize, as, keeping more than one manager is definitely out of case if costs have to be cut down.

The argument can be strengthened by explicitly stating that location was the only factor when the company was centralized. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.

Hi ShreyaMotwani,

I would rate it to 4.
Some pointers:
1. Explain the flaws
2. If any assumptions are not clear
3. If more evidence is required
4. Whether some points in the argument are actually valid and can further be investigated
5. Some examples to prove all this.

Good luck
Please press KUDOS button on the left, if my post was of help ..

Thank you so much for pointing out the gaps. I will certainly use these pointers to improve the essay writing.
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2014, 21:38
2
Hi Guys

This is my first attempt to write the essay. Please rate it. Any feedback and comments will be appreciated.

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.

The business department of the Apogee Company in its memorandum has claimed that Apogee company should centralize and conduct all its operation from a single location. As it would help in cutting down the costs, increase profitability and better supervision of Employees. The conclusion is based on the premise
that Company was more profitable earlier when it conducted its operation from a single location. I think there are several flaws in the line of argument. Hence, the argument sounds little weak and unconvincing.

First of all, the primary reason for low profitability can be completely different from the reason mentioned in the memorandum. There is not substantial evidence to cement that centralization would improve profitability. Profitability depends on the cost and the market price. It can be the case that the market price of the product has decreased over the past few years hence resulting in low profitability.

Secondly, the cost Analysis has not been mentioned. Due to Centralization the employees would have to travel to field for client meetings and other work. This will result
in the additional cost and inconvenience for the employees. It can be the case that most of the talented work force may not shift from their present working location. Also the company’s goodwill may take a hit by suddenly closing all the field offices and may lose some of the business to its competitors. A proper cost analysis would have helped to establish that centralization would result in lower costs.

Thirdly, the argument assumes that having a centralized office will help in the better supervision of Employees and eventually will improve efficiency. This assumption will not be applicable if the management doesn't have the right skills and are themselves at flaw. A little more in depth investigation to find the root cause would have strengthened the argument.

Without the relevant and contextual information, it is difficult to judge the efficacy of the argument suggested in the memorandum.
Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 217

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2014, 05:49
vishal152511 wrote:
Hi Guys

This is my first attempt to write the essay. Please rate it. Any feedback and comments will be appreciated.

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.

The business department of the Apogee Company in its memorandum has claimed that Apogee company should centralize and conduct all its operation from a single location. As it would help in cutting down the costs, increase profitability and better supervision of Employees. The conclusion is based on the premise
that Company was more profitable earlier when it conducted its operation from a single location. I think there are several flaws in the line of argument. Hence, the argument sounds little weak and unconvincing.

First of all, the primary reason for low profitability can be completely different from the reason mentioned in the memorandum. There is not substantial evidence to cement that centralization would improve profitability. Profitability depends on the cost and the market price. It can be the case that the market price of the product has decreased over the past few years hence resulting in low profitability.

Secondly, the cost Analysis has not been mentioned. Due to Centralization the employees would have to travel to field for client meetings and other work. This will result
in the additional cost and inconvenience for the employees. It can be the case that most of the talented work force may not shift from their present working location. Also the company’s goodwill may take a hit by suddenly closing all the field offices and may lose some of the business to its competitors. A proper cost analysis would have helped to establish that centralization would result in lower costs.

Thirdly, the argument assumes that having a centralized office will help in the better supervision of Employees and eventually will improve efficiency. This assumption will not be applicable if the management doesn't have the right skills and are themselves at flaw. A little more in depth investigation to find the root cause would have strengthened the argument.

Without the relevant and contextual information, it is difficult to judge the efficacy of the argument suggested in the memorandum.

Hi Vishal

Well penned. You've correctly identified the primary assumptions. Below are a few points that you may consider :

Have a developed conclusion.
Keep the transitions consistent: firstly, secondly.... or First, Second
Time yourself well; it seems you ran out of time by the end
State the assumption before you explain why it is unreasonable.

Also refer to the points mentioned by crackgmatg.

Best!
Dolly Sharma
_________________
Our GMAT Program- Creating 750+ Scores
Our MBA Consulting- Top Schools and significant Scholarships
PythaGURUS Education
http://www.pythagurus.in
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Posts: 10
Location: Morocco
Schools: HEC Montreal '19
GMAT 1: 490 Q36 V20
GPA: 3.1

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2018, 04:19
Hello Guys

This is my attempt over this essay. Please rate it. Any feedback and comments will be much appreciated.

Quote:
The author assumes that centralisation has a direct positive impact on profitability, as stated for the Apogee company through the argument. This alone doesn’t provide support or proof about how this profitability is being reached so far, and therefore doesn’t constitute a solid attempt to argue with.
Firstly, the author fails to consider that the profitability being calculated as the revenues -(minus) expenses is not always enhanced through centralisation. In fact, if the centralisation would reduce costs like transportation, nothing guarantees the profitability of a product unless its perfectly sold, marketed and advertised. That being said, if the expenses lessen up thanks to centralisation, there is no absolute commitment about the revenues good behaviour in a certain period of time.
Another factor would be also the market itself : Centralisation may also reduce the target market to the region where it is. As the author stated, all operations will be conducted from one location, which will certainly limit the business opportunities to the location and consequently affect the profitability badly.
Furthermore, the author legitimately assumes that the centralisation would also participate in a better supervision of employees. But what if most employees in the business department get to travel a lot for work purposes and for sales meetings in order to meet clients in other cities and regions? This statement is flawed as it misses the fact that the supervision is based upon communication and good morals, especially thanks to recent technological progress which made it easier to connect with people all around the world in a matter of few clicks(complete the justification properly). It is evident that supervising requires a continuous effort of following up and assistance to the employees(incomplete sentence). Consequently, centralisation would not certainly affect the management in supervising employees.
Although the argument has some merits, it fails to consider few other important factors in the profitability equation in regard to centralisation, Indeed, the argument would have been more consistent if it mentioned those points above which constitute essentially solid factors in determining the profitability.

Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 8

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2019, 11:21
Hi, would be great to receive some pointers on my AWA. I used chinesburned's template.

Thanks!

"The argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company’s operations would lead to better profitability due to cost cuts and help Apogee Company maintain better supervision of all its employees. The company states that when all its operations were based out of one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and had several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that centralization will lead to profitability because it cut costs. This statement is a stretch and cannot be substantiated in any way. It isn’t supported with any data or projections. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities reduced their costs by decentralizing their operations. For example, Dish corporation, a top accounting firm in United States of America, is an organization which decentralized its operations to the capital of each state instead of having all its employees work from New York. This benefited the company in serving its customers all over the country readily and without any delays which led to increased business. The company didn’t have to maintain a large head office to house all its employees under one roof which saved the company from having majority of its funds blocked in rent. The employees had greater job satisfaction as those who were not from New York City, were able to choose the offices in their home state and small teams with a designated manager made operations smoother. All these factors led to a greater profitability for Dish. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how centralization of operations would lead to an overall minimized cost.

Second the argument claims that centralization will lead to better supervision of all employees. This again is a very weak and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between quality of supervision and centralization of operations. In, fact the argument does not even state the quality of its supervision of employees when Apogee Corporation had all its operations in one location, nor does it state the quality of its supervision of employees at the currently maintained various locations. If any such correlation had been shown between employee supervision and centralization of operations, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that decentralization led to poor employee supervision, the argument could have been strengthened further.

Finally, the argument concludes that the company should close its field offices and conduct operations from a single location. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how centralized operations are better than decentralized operations. Without convincing and supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where currently centralization of operations has done a great job, one is left with the impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, 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 situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."
Re: Please rate my AWA essay: Apogee company   [#permalink] 07 Oct 2019, 11:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by