|
|
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.
08 Jul 2018, 04:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello everyone,
I just started studying for the GMAT. I would really appreciate it if you would rate my essay. Thanks in advance!
The argument presented by the Apogee Company states that by closing down its field offices, Apogee Company becomes more profitable than it is today. Their stance is that conducting all its operations from a single location will improve profitability. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and incomplete.
The first key flaw of this argument is around the idea of their decline in profitability. The argument heavily implies that conducting operations from their field offices is the main reason fort he company’s decline in profits. Without any factual evidence to back this claim up, it simply cannot be taken as a fact. There are many possible reasons why Apogee company may have declining profits. These could include rising costs of supplies, higher competition, decline in revenues, and many other factors. It would be helpful if the argument included an analysis of the decline in profitability, which shows that the field offices have the biggest influence on the profitability of Apogee Company.
Secondly the argument assumes that maintaining better supervision of the employees contributes to the profitability of Apogee Company. This is a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the supervision of the employees and the profitability of Apogee Company. It fails to provide proof that an increase of supervision will lead to better results from employees.
The third key flaw with the argument is in regards to the history of Apogee Company. Without understanding why Apogee Company opened the field offices in the past, one cannot assume that operating from a single location meets the requirements. It is very possible that being close to the customer is an important part that leads to current revenues. One would need to investigate the effects of returning to a single location on all the factors that could influence profitability.
While on the surface the afgument may make some logical sence, it lacks a great deal of information that is integral to identifying if this is a valid argument. The company certainly needs to make some type of change in order to regain profitability, however the field offices could very well have nothing to do with the decline in profitability. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts and provides proof for assumptions made. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I just started studying for the GMAT. I would really appreciate it if you would rate my essay. Thanks in advance!
The argument presented by the Apogee Company states that by closing down its field offices, Apogee Company becomes more profitable than it is today. Their stance is that conducting all its operations from a single location will improve profitability. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and incomplete.
The first key flaw of this argument is around the idea of their decline in profitability. The argument heavily implies that conducting operations from their field offices is the main reason fort he company’s decline in profits. Without any factual evidence to back this claim up, it simply cannot be taken as a fact. There are many possible reasons why Apogee company may have declining profits. These could include rising costs of supplies, higher competition, decline in revenues, and many other factors. It would be helpful if the argument included an analysis of the decline in profitability, which shows that the field offices have the biggest influence on the profitability of Apogee Company.
Secondly the argument assumes that maintaining better supervision of the employees contributes to the profitability of Apogee Company. This is a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the supervision of the employees and the profitability of Apogee Company. It fails to provide proof that an increase of supervision will lead to better results from employees.
The third key flaw with the argument is in regards to the history of Apogee Company. Without understanding why Apogee Company opened the field offices in the past, one cannot assume that operating from a single location meets the requirements. It is very possible that being close to the customer is an important part that leads to current revenues. One would need to investigate the effects of returning to a single location on all the factors that could influence profitability.
While on the surface the afgument may make some logical sence, it lacks a great deal of information that is integral to identifying if this is a valid argument. The company certainly needs to make some type of change in order to regain profitability, however the field offices could very well have nothing to do with the decline in profitability. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts and provides proof for assumptions made. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
