|
|
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.
23 Feb 2016, 05:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey Guys,
This is my first AWA. If someone could please comment on the flaws I chose vs. the flaws they would've chosen, it would be much appreciated!
Thanks for your time!
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.
The author concludes that Apogee Company has become less profitable since it decide to decentralize its operation and open field offices. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the decrease in Apogee profits are explained by the burning costs produce by the field offices that have been open in other locations. However the author’s argument is not well reasoned and fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim, making his argument weak.
First, the argument made by the author is not well reasoned as it contains two debatable assumptions that make the argument weak and debatable. The first author`s assumptions is that the company became less profitable because of the new field offices. That statement is weak, because it does not take into consideration other several factors that could explain the down trend in profits of the company such as a recession in the economy or loss of market share or the increase in the cost of the company. The second assumption is that the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Even though, it could be true that the company will minimize cos, the author should have given more evidence that proves that the company will expend less money with a centralize operation, this evidence could have been a comparison between the actual cost of the company and the cost that it had when the operation was centralized.
Second, the author cites that “The Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location”. However fails into consider that this new location are less expensive for the company that having a centralized operation. So in order to support the conclusion the author needs to prove that closing the field offices is the only way to make the company profitable again. Also this evidence makes the argument weak as it does not have any data or study that support the conclusion, making the argument open to debate.
Third, the author could have strengthened the argument by providing data or analysis of the current situation of the company. Analyzing company indicator of profitability such as operational margins, gross margins, historical EBITDAs and the free cash flow of the company would have given more insight about the present of the company and will support more the author`s conclusion.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and not well reasoned for the above-mentioned reasons. In order to strengthen it, the author should use relevant facts suggested above.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
This is my first AWA. If someone could please comment on the flaws I chose vs. the flaws they would've chosen, it would be much appreciated!
Thanks for your time!
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.
The author concludes that Apogee Company has become less profitable since it decide to decentralize its operation and open field offices. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the decrease in Apogee profits are explained by the burning costs produce by the field offices that have been open in other locations. However the author’s argument is not well reasoned and fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim, making his argument weak.
First, the argument made by the author is not well reasoned as it contains two debatable assumptions that make the argument weak and debatable. The first author`s assumptions is that the company became less profitable because of the new field offices. That statement is weak, because it does not take into consideration other several factors that could explain the down trend in profits of the company such as a recession in the economy or loss of market share or the increase in the cost of the company. The second assumption is that the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Even though, it could be true that the company will minimize cos, the author should have given more evidence that proves that the company will expend less money with a centralize operation, this evidence could have been a comparison between the actual cost of the company and the cost that it had when the operation was centralized.
Second, the author cites that “The Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location”. However fails into consider that this new location are less expensive for the company that having a centralized operation. So in order to support the conclusion the author needs to prove that closing the field offices is the only way to make the company profitable again. Also this evidence makes the argument weak as it does not have any data or study that support the conclusion, making the argument open to debate.
Third, the author could have strengthened the argument by providing data or analysis of the current situation of the company. Analyzing company indicator of profitability such as operational margins, gross margins, historical EBITDAs and the free cash flow of the company would have given more insight about the present of the company and will support more the author`s conclusion.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and not well reasoned for the above-mentioned reasons. In order to strengthen it, the author should use relevant facts suggested above.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
