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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
2016formba
Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Last visit: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Kelley '18 (D) BYU-Marriott'18 (M) Schulich Sept"18 Katz '18 (I) NUS '18 (S) Madison '17 W. P. Carey Arizona State '18 (I)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 4
Schools: Kelley '18 (D) BYU-Marriott'18 (M) Schulich Sept"18 Katz '18 (I) NUS '18 (S) Madison '17 W. P. Carey Arizona State '18 (I)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 69
Kudos:
15
19 Sep 2014, 06:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Can you please rate my essay. This is my first attempt. Need your feedback.
"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."
The argument claims that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location. This conclusion relies on the premise stating that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company in maintaining better supervision of all employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention the key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that having centralized office would improve the profitability of the company. This claim is based on the premise stating that when Apogee Company had all its operation in one location, it was more profitable. The author does not present the factors why the company was in profit during that period and what factors are affecting now to reduce the profit. The profits can be reduced because of the several factors. For example, recently an article was published in Business Week regarding slow growth of economy and recession period being forecasted in near future. The slow growth of the economy will affect the company profits, such a period might not have occurred when the company had centralized office keeping the profit margins high. Also the company has started investing in opening new field offices in-order to expand by reducing its profit margin. Clearly, the argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated factors affecting company profits.
Second, the argument assumes that having a centralized office will help in maintaining better supervision of all employees. This assumption will not be applicable if the management officers/directors are at fault. If the company managers do not have appropriate skills to supervise the employees, having centralized office will not make any sense. Also recently few managers were fired from field offices because of mismanagement and non-supervision skills. If the argument had provided more evidence regarding mismanagement or less supervision caused by having multiple field offices then the argument would have been a lot convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could been considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to evaluate the merits and demerits of decision, it is essential to consider all the contributing factors.
Can you please rate my essay. This is my first attempt. Need your feedback.
"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."
The argument claims that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location. This conclusion relies on the premise stating that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and help the company in maintaining better supervision of all employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention the key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that having centralized office would improve the profitability of the company. This claim is based on the premise stating that when Apogee Company had all its operation in one location, it was more profitable. The author does not present the factors why the company was in profit during that period and what factors are affecting now to reduce the profit. The profits can be reduced because of the several factors. For example, recently an article was published in Business Week regarding slow growth of economy and recession period being forecasted in near future. The slow growth of the economy will affect the company profits, such a period might not have occurred when the company had centralized office keeping the profit margins high. Also the company has started investing in opening new field offices in-order to expand by reducing its profit margin. Clearly, the argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated factors affecting company profits.
Second, the argument assumes that having a centralized office will help in maintaining better supervision of all employees. This assumption will not be applicable if the management officers/directors are at fault. If the company managers do not have appropriate skills to supervise the employees, having centralized office will not make any sense. Also recently few managers were fired from field offices because of mismanagement and non-supervision skills. If the argument had provided more evidence regarding mismanagement or less supervision caused by having multiple field offices then the argument would have been a lot convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could been considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to evaluate the merits and demerits of decision, it is essential to consider all the contributing factors.
07 Dec 2014, 07:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
I am not qualified to rate your essay but as a point of reference I just did the same question and we both touched on a number of the same issues.
++++
The authors argument is based on the fact that when the Apogee company had its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. From this the author makes inferences about the strategic direction of the company in order to return the company back to its most profitable days. The problem with the authors arguments for change are is that they are not clearly thought out, contain a number of logical flaws and if implemented could in fact have a negative impact on the company.
The first major flaw in the argument is that the author does not clearly define what he means by profitability. Profitability can be measured in a number of different ways such as profit margin, net profit, gross profit and shareholder returns. This distinction is important because we are not given any information about the company’s revenue or cost before the expansion of the company. For example when the company started out it may have had very low running costs meaning that the money it did make resulted in a significantly high profit margin. As the company grew however the cost of doing business also increased. The result may have been a lower profit margin but a much higher overall net profit. In order to strengthen this argument the author should have made a clearer distinction about what kind of profit he was referring to.
In the second sentence the author suggests that the solution to the profitability is to close down the company’s field offices. The failure of this statement is that the author provides no information about the nature of the field offices, their importance within the company or their impact on the company’s profitability. For example, if the company had expanded nationally due to the saturation of its home market, the field offices may be the primary source of income for the company. Shutting these down would have the opposite effect of increasing profitability. We also are told nothing about the size of the field offices or who works in them. For all we know the field offices could be a very lean enterprise operating on a budget at the forefront of new markets. They may also have the best sales people located working in them. Closing down these offices would therefore have a hugely detrimental effect on the company’s P&L. Conversely, had the author stated that the field offices were costly to operate and generated little to no income his argument would have been strengthened accordingly.
Finally the author states that centralization will result in lower costs and help the company maintain better employee supervision. No evidence is provided so support this argument. This is significant as centralization in itself is a strategy but not necessarily related to cost cutting. By centralizing a company costs could increase through having to relocate staff, higher marketing and travel expenses for staff to meet clients etc. Further to this there is no indication that better supervision of its employees will lead to lower costs and this argument seems somewhat irrelevant to the authors cause.
In conclusion the authors argument lacks evidence in which to back up his ideas and makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. In order to improve his argument the author must provide more evidence to support his ideas.
++++
The authors argument is based on the fact that when the Apogee company had its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. From this the author makes inferences about the strategic direction of the company in order to return the company back to its most profitable days. The problem with the authors arguments for change are is that they are not clearly thought out, contain a number of logical flaws and if implemented could in fact have a negative impact on the company.
The first major flaw in the argument is that the author does not clearly define what he means by profitability. Profitability can be measured in a number of different ways such as profit margin, net profit, gross profit and shareholder returns. This distinction is important because we are not given any information about the company’s revenue or cost before the expansion of the company. For example when the company started out it may have had very low running costs meaning that the money it did make resulted in a significantly high profit margin. As the company grew however the cost of doing business also increased. The result may have been a lower profit margin but a much higher overall net profit. In order to strengthen this argument the author should have made a clearer distinction about what kind of profit he was referring to.
In the second sentence the author suggests that the solution to the profitability is to close down the company’s field offices. The failure of this statement is that the author provides no information about the nature of the field offices, their importance within the company or their impact on the company’s profitability. For example, if the company had expanded nationally due to the saturation of its home market, the field offices may be the primary source of income for the company. Shutting these down would have the opposite effect of increasing profitability. We also are told nothing about the size of the field offices or who works in them. For all we know the field offices could be a very lean enterprise operating on a budget at the forefront of new markets. They may also have the best sales people located working in them. Closing down these offices would therefore have a hugely detrimental effect on the company’s P&L. Conversely, had the author stated that the field offices were costly to operate and generated little to no income his argument would have been strengthened accordingly.
Finally the author states that centralization will result in lower costs and help the company maintain better employee supervision. No evidence is provided so support this argument. This is significant as centralization in itself is a strategy but not necessarily related to cost cutting. By centralizing a company costs could increase through having to relocate staff, higher marketing and travel expenses for staff to meet clients etc. Further to this there is no indication that better supervision of its employees will lead to lower costs and this argument seems somewhat irrelevant to the authors cause.
In conclusion the authors argument lacks evidence in which to back up his ideas and makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. In order to improve his argument the author must provide more evidence to support his ideas.
Moderator:
