When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was

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.


Note I am using chineseburned template (may be obvious) but this is a really good tool.

-----BEGIN----

The argument claims that the Apogee company would be more profitable today, if it centralised its operations by closing down all field offices and relocating all employees to a single location. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which could be evaluated.

First the argument readily assumes that closing down its field offices and conducting all its operations from a single location will lead to cost reduction. This statement is a stretch because it fails to address some key issues. For example, in order to relocate employees from field offices to a central office, additional costs should be considered such as relocation expenses, office expansion costs to cater for the increase in headcount, and the infrastructure to support such employees. Clearly this cost has not been accounted for or presented in the argument. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how these factors would be addressed.

Second the argument claims that in the past, Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location. This is again a weak argument as the author assumes that many economic factors have not changed since the company posted those profits. The argument does not offer any facts or figures to support this statement nor does it explain the reasons for Apogees expansion into its current operational structure. If the argument provided evidence that demonstrated the profit and loss breakdown of the company over time, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally there are some key questions that if answered would help analyse the argument further.
1. What is the purpose of the Apogee field offices? For example, do they generate regional sales, or are they part of the production of goods.
2. What is the financial performance of each Apogee field office? This could assist in a better financial analysis of the operation costs.
3. What are the costs to relocate all staff and setup a larger single office to accommodate this larger workforce?

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts such as financial reports, field office analysis and historical comparisons. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have the full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case there are too many gaps in the data. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.