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
Nightmare007
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Last visit: 05 Aug 2020
Posts: 436
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 204
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
Schools: ISB '20 (M) Simon '21 (WL)
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
18 Jun 2017, 23:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi can anyone help me out with my AWA's ins and outs.
As I had score mere 3.5 in AWA in previous attempt. I started to concentrate on AWAs too.
GMATNinja , daagh sir. Thank you.
Took 34 min. Need to work out on timing.
Kindly, rate it and let me know any points i need to adhere to get a good score or to restructure my approach.
Thank you.
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument claims that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location to improve its profitability. To justify the claim business department states that When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today, and that Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. However, I find this argument flawed and weak in various aspects. The author uses many assumptions and flaws to convey his position.
Firstly, the argument fails to convey the necessary information to present how centralization helps in cutting costs and helps company maintain better supervision of all employees. Moreover, the argument appears to be biased, representing only the positives and neglecting the negative consequences of the centralization. Furthermore, the argument never mentions the feasibility of the plan to adhere to centralization in the present situation, in which the company is spread out in different parts of the region. It is entirely possible that Centralization will have its own negatives which will overpower the positives thus hindering its profitability. For instance, Centralization through closing field offices can implant a negative impression on the company in consumers, thereby can decrease its profits. However, if the author explicitly mentions that all the negative consequences are taken over and found that positive consequences of centralization would overpower those of negative, the argument can be strengthened to some extent.
Secondly, the conclusion that the company should follow centralization to increase profits because centralization increases profitability by helping cutting costs, and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees does not explain how the centralization bests over other alternate methods. It is entirely possible that globalization is actually better than centralization as in case of many outstanding companies. Globalization provides wider range of opportunities such as direct interaction with clients, increasing the scope of the company thereby increasing the consumer pool. Hence, this argument is completely biased and explains only one side of the coin. However, the business department can strengthen the pillars of support by providing adequate information about the other alternate methods and about how the centralization bests over other alternate methods.
Finally, the business department uses the basic future-past flaw - a flaw believing states what was true in the past will be true in the future, assuming that all the factors that affected at that particular time in past will come into effect in future. Here, the author states that when the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today to infer his conclusion that attributes the profitability to conducting operations under a single location. Furthermore, the argument is also making a causal relationship between profitability and working under same roof. Without properly justifying how working under same roof is related to profitability. However, the business development team can strengthen its argument by specifically stating that profitability was caused by working under same roof through evidences and by stating that all the factors once effected the previous profitability remain same in the future.
In Conclusion, I believe the argument flawed and weak. The argument is based on questionable assumptions and illogical flaws. However, the business development team can strengthen its argument by stating all the mentioned above assumptions and providing adequate evidence to cope up with the above-mentioned flaws.
As I had score mere 3.5 in AWA in previous attempt. I started to concentrate on AWAs too.
GMATNinja , daagh sir. Thank you.
Took 34 min. Need to work out on timing.
Kindly, rate it and let me know any points i need to adhere to get a good score or to restructure my approach.
Thank you.
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 maintains better supervision of all employees.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument claims that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location to improve its profitability. To justify the claim business department states that When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today, and that Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. However, I find this argument flawed and weak in various aspects. The author uses many assumptions and flaws to convey his position.
Firstly, the argument fails to convey the necessary information to present how centralization helps in cutting costs and helps company maintain better supervision of all employees. Moreover, the argument appears to be biased, representing only the positives and neglecting the negative consequences of the centralization. Furthermore, the argument never mentions the feasibility of the plan to adhere to centralization in the present situation, in which the company is spread out in different parts of the region. It is entirely possible that Centralization will have its own negatives which will overpower the positives thus hindering its profitability. For instance, Centralization through closing field offices can implant a negative impression on the company in consumers, thereby can decrease its profits. However, if the author explicitly mentions that all the negative consequences are taken over and found that positive consequences of centralization would overpower those of negative, the argument can be strengthened to some extent.
Secondly, the conclusion that the company should follow centralization to increase profits because centralization increases profitability by helping cutting costs, and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees does not explain how the centralization bests over other alternate methods. It is entirely possible that globalization is actually better than centralization as in case of many outstanding companies. Globalization provides wider range of opportunities such as direct interaction with clients, increasing the scope of the company thereby increasing the consumer pool. Hence, this argument is completely biased and explains only one side of the coin. However, the business department can strengthen the pillars of support by providing adequate information about the other alternate methods and about how the centralization bests over other alternate methods.
Finally, the business department uses the basic future-past flaw - a flaw believing states what was true in the past will be true in the future, assuming that all the factors that affected at that particular time in past will come into effect in future. Here, the author states that when the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today to infer his conclusion that attributes the profitability to conducting operations under a single location. Furthermore, the argument is also making a causal relationship between profitability and working under same roof. Without properly justifying how working under same roof is related to profitability. However, the business development team can strengthen its argument by specifically stating that profitability was caused by working under same roof through evidences and by stating that all the factors once effected the previous profitability remain same in the future.
In Conclusion, I believe the argument flawed and weak. The argument is based on questionable assumptions and illogical flaws. However, the business development team can strengthen its argument by stating all the mentioned above assumptions and providing adequate evidence to cope up with the above-mentioned flaws.
Moderators:
188 posts
