|
|
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.
01 Aug 2012, 22:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Response:
The argument claims that Apogee company shal close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from
as single locatin in order to increase the profits. At the first glance the argument appears to be coherent,
convincing and legitimate. But if we observe the argument and its structure carefully, a number of flaws are
blatant that neither the argument nor its conclusion could be taken into account seriously. The key shortcomings
include unsuppoted assumptions and lack of examples to substantiate the conclusion.
Firstly, the argument assumed that closing down all the other offices would improve the profit. This assumption is a
misconception because closing down may not guranatee profits. What if the company at other places was just started
genrating profits and the growth rate is good.
Secondly, the argument suggests for centralization inorder to increase profitablity by cost cutting and to maintain
better supervision. But the argument ignored that possbility lossing the bussiness at other places. The company at
other places might have been focussing different other areas of business.
Lastly, the arguement also assumend that profits can be increased by operating from one place. But this idea will
oversee the potential business benifts of operating in other places. The company may loose potential chance of
advancing their business in different which may inturn increase the profits beacuse of expanded business. From the
other perspective, if the office is operated from only single it may loose the advantage of understanding/getting
the local benifits that are available in that particular area.
Overall, the argument in its current state is not as convincing as it stands. The argument should have provided
enough support to its assumptions and few examples in order to foolproof the arugment.
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.
Response:
The argument claims that Apogee company shal close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from
as single locatin in order to increase the profits. At the first glance the argument appears to be coherent,
convincing and legitimate. But if we observe the argument and its structure carefully, a number of flaws are
blatant that neither the argument nor its conclusion could be taken into account seriously. The key shortcomings
include unsuppoted assumptions and lack of examples to substantiate the conclusion.
Firstly, the argument assumed that closing down all the other offices would improve the profit. This assumption is a
misconception because closing down may not guranatee profits. What if the company at other places was just started
genrating profits and the growth rate is good.
Secondly, the argument suggests for centralization inorder to increase profitablity by cost cutting and to maintain
better supervision. But the argument ignored that possbility lossing the bussiness at other places. The company at
other places might have been focussing different other areas of business.
Lastly, the arguement also assumend that profits can be increased by operating from one place. But this idea will
oversee the potential business benifts of operating in other places. The company may loose potential chance of
advancing their business in different which may inturn increase the profits beacuse of expanded business. From the
other perspective, if the office is operated from only single it may loose the advantage of understanding/getting
the local benifits that are available in that particular area.
Overall, the argument in its current state is not as convincing as it stands. The argument should have provided
enough support to its assumptions and few examples in order to foolproof the arugment.
Moderators:
188 posts
