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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
26 Feb 2023, 00:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
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.
Essay:
The argument concludes that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and operate from a single location because it was more profitable when it had all of its operations in one location. The argument concludes that the centralization of the company’s operations would improve profitability via cost cutting and increased supervision of all employees. This conclusion relies on several unsubstantiated assumptions and fails to mention key factors that are necessary for evaluating the argument. Hence the argument is unconvincing and is riddled with several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because the company had greater profits when it operated from one location it will regain those levels of profit by returning to operating from a single location. This assumption is a stretch because it is not supported in any way. The argument does not provide evidence to show a clear relationship between profit and the number of company operations in different locations. There are several other factors that could cause a decrease in profit that the author fails to mention or consider. For example, it could be the case that around the time Apogee opened field offices the general economy began to tank leading to a decline in profits, meaning that even if the company were to have remained with a single centralized operation, its profits today could still be less than they were previously. The argument also fails to consider whether Apogee has deliberately sacrificed present profits for much larger future profits that have not yet been realized. If this is the case, then it is clear why Apogee was more profitable when it had all its operatons in one location and closing those field operations could actually hamper future profits. The argument could have been more cogent if it explicity showed how Apogees’ profits were hampered from decentralized operations.
Second, the argument claims that the company would improve profitability by cutting costs through centralization. This claim is weak because it does not consider another necessary component of the profit equation - revenue. The author fails to mention how the company’s revenue would be impacted by centralizing its operations and without such information one cannot fully assess the validity of the argument. For instance, if the forgone revenue from closing field operations outweighs the cost savings then the claim that such centralization would increase profitability is clearly untrue. If the argument had provided evidence that revenue would not be negatively impacted by centralization or that the money saved from reducing costs outweighs the sacrificed sales, then the argument would have been much more cogent.
Finally, the argument suggests that centralization will improve profitability by helping the company maintain greater supervision of all of its employees. This claim is weak because the argument does not clearly show a relationship between increased employee supervision and because it does not provide evidence that centralization will actually promote supervision of every employee. One could even argue that increased supervision of employees could hamper the company’s culture by reducing employee morale, satisfaction, and creativity, which could in turn reduce profits. Without convincing evidence to show that increase employee supervision wouldl cause increased profit, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvinving. The author could considerably strengthen the argument by supporting assumptions with cogent evidence that shows a clear relationship between Apogees’ profits and the centralization of its operations and increased supervision of its employees. Without such evidence, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
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.
Essay:
The argument concludes that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and operate from a single location because it was more profitable when it had all of its operations in one location. The argument concludes that the centralization of the company’s operations would improve profitability via cost cutting and increased supervision of all employees. This conclusion relies on several unsubstantiated assumptions and fails to mention key factors that are necessary for evaluating the argument. Hence the argument is unconvincing and is riddled with several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because the company had greater profits when it operated from one location it will regain those levels of profit by returning to operating from a single location. This assumption is a stretch because it is not supported in any way. The argument does not provide evidence to show a clear relationship between profit and the number of company operations in different locations. There are several other factors that could cause a decrease in profit that the author fails to mention or consider. For example, it could be the case that around the time Apogee opened field offices the general economy began to tank leading to a decline in profits, meaning that even if the company were to have remained with a single centralized operation, its profits today could still be less than they were previously. The argument also fails to consider whether Apogee has deliberately sacrificed present profits for much larger future profits that have not yet been realized. If this is the case, then it is clear why Apogee was more profitable when it had all its operatons in one location and closing those field operations could actually hamper future profits. The argument could have been more cogent if it explicity showed how Apogees’ profits were hampered from decentralized operations.
Second, the argument claims that the company would improve profitability by cutting costs through centralization. This claim is weak because it does not consider another necessary component of the profit equation - revenue. The author fails to mention how the company’s revenue would be impacted by centralizing its operations and without such information one cannot fully assess the validity of the argument. For instance, if the forgone revenue from closing field operations outweighs the cost savings then the claim that such centralization would increase profitability is clearly untrue. If the argument had provided evidence that revenue would not be negatively impacted by centralization or that the money saved from reducing costs outweighs the sacrificed sales, then the argument would have been much more cogent.
Finally, the argument suggests that centralization will improve profitability by helping the company maintain greater supervision of all of its employees. This claim is weak because the argument does not clearly show a relationship between increased employee supervision and because it does not provide evidence that centralization will actually promote supervision of every employee. One could even argue that increased supervision of employees could hamper the company’s culture by reducing employee morale, satisfaction, and creativity, which could in turn reduce profits. Without convincing evidence to show that increase employee supervision wouldl cause increased profit, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvinving. The author could considerably strengthen the argument by supporting assumptions with cogent evidence that shows a clear relationship between Apogees’ profits and the centralization of its operations and increased supervision of its employees. Without such evidence, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
26 Feb 2023, 00:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
The essay presents a well-reasoned analysis of the argument put forth by the Apogee Company's business department. The essay points out several flaws in the argument and provides alternative explanations that weaken the conclusion. The essay is well-structured, and the author effectively uses evidence to support their points.
The essay is clear in its presentation of the flaws in the argument. The author points out that the argument assumes a relationship between profit and the number of company operations in different locations, but there are several other factors that could cause a decrease in profit. The author also notes that the argument fails to consider the impact of revenue on profitability and does not provide convincing evidence that increased employee supervision would result in increased profits.
The essay effectively uses evidence to support its points. For example, the author notes that it could be the case that the general economy began to tank around the time Apogee opened field offices, which could explain the decline in profits. The essay also notes that without evidence that revenue would not be negatively impacted by centralization, one cannot fully assess the validity of the argument.
The essay could be improved by addressing some additional factors that could impact the profitability of Apogee. For example, the essay does not consider the impact of competition on Apogee's profitability. Additionally, the essay could address the potential costs of closing down field offices and the impact of such a decision on Apogee's employees.
Overall, the essay presents a well-reasoned analysis of the argument put forth by the Apogee Company's business department. The essay effectively uses evidence to support its points and provides alternative explanations that weaken the conclusion. The essay could be improved by addressing additional factors that could impact Apogee's profitability.
Score: 5.0 out of 6.0
Follow the AWA sub forum rules before you post any thing up next. Read the rules in the post in the link below
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Cheers
The essay is clear in its presentation of the flaws in the argument. The author points out that the argument assumes a relationship between profit and the number of company operations in different locations, but there are several other factors that could cause a decrease in profit. The author also notes that the argument fails to consider the impact of revenue on profitability and does not provide convincing evidence that increased employee supervision would result in increased profits.
The essay effectively uses evidence to support its points. For example, the author notes that it could be the case that the general economy began to tank around the time Apogee opened field offices, which could explain the decline in profits. The essay also notes that without evidence that revenue would not be negatively impacted by centralization, one cannot fully assess the validity of the argument.
The essay could be improved by addressing some additional factors that could impact the profitability of Apogee. For example, the essay does not consider the impact of competition on Apogee's profitability. Additionally, the essay could address the potential costs of closing down field offices and the impact of such a decision on Apogee's employees.
Overall, the essay presents a well-reasoned analysis of the argument put forth by the Apogee Company's business department. The essay effectively uses evidence to support its points and provides alternative explanations that weaken the conclusion. The essay could be improved by addressing additional factors that could impact Apogee's profitability.
Score: 5.0 out of 6.0
Follow the AWA sub forum rules before you post any thing up next. Read the rules in the post in the link below
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Cheers
donu
Moderator:
