Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
26 Jul 2019, 17:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello everyone, I would appreciate your feedback on my first AWA. Please see below.
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. Take 30 minutes to write an essay on the computer.
******************************************************************************************
The argument that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from one location is flawed. The underlying argument is not support by sufficient evidence and is ambiguous in terms of the language used. Specifically, there is an assumption that the Apogee Company was more profitable because it operated out of one location. Another weakness of the argument lies in the lack of clarity in the use of the word “profitable”. One is unable to ascertain what factors are taken into account when measuring profitability of the Apogee Company. Lastly, there is no evidence to suggest that the centralisation of the Apogee Company would directly result in reduced costs and better supervision of employees.
The assumption that the Apogee Company was more profitable because it operated out of one location cannot be drawn based on the information presented. There could be many other factors that have affected the profitability, both internal and external to the Apogee Company. For example, there could have been a change in market conditions or management of the Apogee Company. Without more substantial clarification, this argument is farfetched and baseless.
Turning to the secondary point, the use of the word “profitable”, one is unable to determine the factors that are taken into account when measuring profitability. Is the profitability measured across the last two years or a range of time periods? Is profitability measured for the financial or calendar year? What metrics form part of this measure? These are all questions that arise when analysing the argument. One cannot truly understand the meaning of the word “profitability” in the context of the argument without answers to all these questions.
Lastly, there is nothing in the argument to suggest that the centralisation of the Apogee Company would lead to reduced costs and better supervision. In the contrary, centralisation may mean that management would be required to oversee the operation of many more staff than before, leading to poorer supervision and lower quality work produced by employees. Although it seems that centralisation may cut costs, there is further information provided on how the centralisation may be action by the Apogee Company. If operations are centralised, the Apogee Company may be required to hire additional office spaces and restructure its operation model. Unfortunately, the cost of doing so may outweigh the reduced costs.
The argument would be more sound and persuasive if it justified the assumption that the Apogee Company would be better off operating out of one centralised location and provided clarification on the use of the word “profitability”. Without such information, the argument is reduced to a mere opinion which is not supported by evidence, but rather very vague assumptions regarding the operation of the Apogee Company.
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. Take 30 minutes to write an essay on the computer.
******************************************************************************************
The argument that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from one location is flawed. The underlying argument is not support by sufficient evidence and is ambiguous in terms of the language used. Specifically, there is an assumption that the Apogee Company was more profitable because it operated out of one location. Another weakness of the argument lies in the lack of clarity in the use of the word “profitable”. One is unable to ascertain what factors are taken into account when measuring profitability of the Apogee Company. Lastly, there is no evidence to suggest that the centralisation of the Apogee Company would directly result in reduced costs and better supervision of employees.
The assumption that the Apogee Company was more profitable because it operated out of one location cannot be drawn based on the information presented. There could be many other factors that have affected the profitability, both internal and external to the Apogee Company. For example, there could have been a change in market conditions or management of the Apogee Company. Without more substantial clarification, this argument is farfetched and baseless.
Turning to the secondary point, the use of the word “profitable”, one is unable to determine the factors that are taken into account when measuring profitability. Is the profitability measured across the last two years or a range of time periods? Is profitability measured for the financial or calendar year? What metrics form part of this measure? These are all questions that arise when analysing the argument. One cannot truly understand the meaning of the word “profitability” in the context of the argument without answers to all these questions.
Lastly, there is nothing in the argument to suggest that the centralisation of the Apogee Company would lead to reduced costs and better supervision. In the contrary, centralisation may mean that management would be required to oversee the operation of many more staff than before, leading to poorer supervision and lower quality work produced by employees. Although it seems that centralisation may cut costs, there is further information provided on how the centralisation may be action by the Apogee Company. If operations are centralised, the Apogee Company may be required to hire additional office spaces and restructure its operation model. Unfortunately, the cost of doing so may outweigh the reduced costs.
The argument would be more sound and persuasive if it justified the assumption that the Apogee Company would be better off operating out of one centralised location and provided clarification on the use of the word “profitability”. Without such information, the argument is reduced to a mere opinion which is not supported by evidence, but rather very vague assumptions regarding the operation of the Apogee Company.
Moderators:
189 posts
