Please rate my second AWA writing!

"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

---- I tried to apply the Chinese burned template this time, and to write longer than the first time Yet, running out of time is my issue... some tips for that?

The argument claims that the centralization of operations of Apogee Company would improve profitability of the company by cutting costs and helping it maintain better supervision of employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence for this correlation. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the centralization of operations function could improve its profitability. Yet, the author does not present any clear evidence of the correlation of the argument. For example, one of the benefits from the centralization of the operation functions is the shortened time for decision making and for internal communications. In this case, it is clear that the centralization enables faster important decision, leading more profitability of the company at the end. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated such factors to strengthen the centralization and improved profitability.

Second, the argument is very weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any correlation between the centralization and profitability. In fact it is not clear that the centralization of the operation could result in cost reduction. If the company has been operating many field offices for a long time, and decides to centralize them at once , it may cost huge amount of money. The company needs to find new office buildings, set up new infrastructures, and may reconsider re-organization of the company as a whole. Rather, it sounds more profitable if the company invests in IT infrastructure and new tools for fast and easy communications. If the author compares cost-effectiveness of options besides just centralizing offices, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Third, the argument has a flaw that it hastily concluded that the centralization could help the company maintain better supervision. However, it overlooked that some loss that the centralizations would bring. For example, the centralization plan would cause unexpected side effects; good employees working at field offices would leave due to relocation and resources and teamwork constructed by field offices could be vanished and re-established. These are all huge cost that might not offset the advantages of the company’s plan and undoubtedly would impact worse supervision. Without convincing explanations to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of 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 mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to evaluate the merits of the company’s centralization plan, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the factors such as the effect of centralization to the decision timelines and communications, the alternatives that would better improves profitability and supervision like investment for IT infrastructures, and the possible side effects such as the loss of employees or good resources should be considered and clearly stated. Without the information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.