When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
25 Nov 2020, 01:27
Argument: “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 “
The argument claims that Apogee Company should close down its field offices from all other location and should conduct all its operation from one location to be more profitable. Hence with the result of shifting all field offices in one location can improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company maintain better supervision of all employee. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument is based on the results of the old strategy which could have worked in the past but could be feasible in the present time frame. For example, the profits in the old time can be due low transportation cost due to better connectivity of trains or other mode of transportation for field people to commute to the office. In the present time frame the connectivity can be poor due to urbanisation in area and due to high cost fuel due to which the transportation is to be provided by apogee company to the field offices people. A portion of transportation cost could have increased the overall cost. The argument could have been much better if it explicitly stated the reason for profits in one location.
Second, the argument claims that Apogee company should close down its field office and conduct all its operations from a single location. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the shifting the field office to particular location can make the Apogee company profitable. It might be that Apogee company has signed a lease of its office locations with local government for the long duration and breaking the lease agreement in prior to end date can cause apogee company in long term losses in those location where Apogee company field offices is situated. The local movement can impose a long-term ban on Apogee company due to this misconduct which can hamper the Apogee company reputation in the market. Without knowing the local governments law and penalties for misconduct we can’t evaluate the stance on this argument.
Finally, we cannot deduce from the arguments that Centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company maintain better supervision for all employees. Without convincing answer to the above questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above -mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions all the related facts for this claim of shifting all the field offices in single location. Without this information the argument is open for the debate.