When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was

Question

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 argument claims that the Apogee company must start operating from a centralized location in order to increase profitability, the claim of the argument is based on the premise that Apogee Company was profitable when it was operation in one location.The assumptions on which the argument is based have no clear evidences and are flawed.

First, the argument readily assumes that a phenomenon that was workable is past will remain workable in the future i.e. Apogee will be able to become more profitable now through one location operations as earlier. However, the argument fails to consider other possibilities that might have caused a decrease in the profitability such as : introduction of a strong competitor with strong customer analysis ability.

Second, the argument assumes that profitability will increase if the cost will decrease and employees get better supervision, but the argument fails to take into account the effect that customer base will face due to shrinking of operational areas that can highly reduce the profitability.

In conclusion, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate. In order to strengthen it , the author must provide strong evidence supporting the conclusion and also consider all the factors including both internal and external factors that can affect Apogee’s rate of profit in order to draw a strong conclusion.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 4.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 4.5
The essay maintains coherence and connectivity between ideas quite well, but there are some instances where the transitions could be smoother for improved readability.

Word structure: 4.5
The language and word structure in the essay are effective, with a few minor grammatical issues that do not significantly affect clarity.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5
The essay is structured into paragraphs, but there are a few places where the transitions between paragraphs could be more seamless for better organization.

Language and Grammar: 4.5
The essay employs generally correct language and grammar, with only minor, occasional issues that do not significantly impede fluency.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5
The vocabulary and word expression used in the essay are generally sound. However, there's potential for further enrichment with more varied and sophisticated vocabulary in places.

Overall, the essay provides a reasonably coherent and well-structured response to the argument, effectively identifying flaws in the original argument's logic and assumptions. The language and grammar are strong, although there is room for improvement in paragraph transitions and vocabulary usage for a slightly higher score.

wasario · Answer

Hi, I also wrote an essay for this prompt, if someone could please take a look at it and rate it for me, I would greatly appreciate it!

Essay:

The argument presents the claim that the Apogee Company should close all of its field offices and conduct all its operations from one location under the pretense that it would improve profitability by cutting costs and making it easier to supervise employees. However, the argument is based on a lack of convincing evidence, baseless jumps to conclusions, and weak analysis of the little evidence that is utilized. As a result, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and contains several flaws that could be strengthened in many different ways.

To begin with, the argument mentions that when the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. On one hand, while this piece of information may initially seem somewhat convincing on a surface level, deeper insight exposes the many flaws of this statement and the multitude of other details the argument fails to discuss. First, the author of the argument simply states that the company used to be “more profitable”, implying that the company is still profitable today. By failing to disclose how much more profitable the company used to be, it is dubious whether or not profits are even a major concern for the Apogee Company; this is because if the company is still largely profitable, albeit slightly less than it used to be, then the company would still be in good hands and increasing profitability would not be a pressing issue. Another issue with this first statement, however, is the fact that operating under a single facility is not the only plausible cause of higher profits in the past for the Apogee Company; there are a plethora of other reasons why this could be the case: employee salaries used to be less than they are now, customers were buying more of the companies products, or products were cheaper to make than they are currently. The argument could be stronger if further analyzed why the company used to be more profitable when it was operating in one location and how much more profit the company was earning.

Secondly, the author of the argument proposes that the Apogee Company close down all its field offices and conduct its operations from a single location. However, although the author makes it sound like a facile change, he or she fails to mention the numerous negative side effects such a change could have. For instance, many of these field offices could be located throughout the country; as a consequently, if they are all closed, many of the employees who worked in these different locations would be unwilling to move to work in 1 centralized office, as it would require lots of time, money, and inconvenience, thereby leading to a potential decrease in overall number of employees. Additionally, there is no mention of how much it costs for the company to keep these other field locations open; if keeping the field locations open is a miniscule cost for the Apogee Company that has no real noticeable effect on the overall spendings of the company’s budget, then closing these facilities down would have no real impact on increasing the company’s profits by a justifiable or noticeable margin. Had the author elucidated the reasons behind this proposed decision and the positive consequences it would have, the argument would prove to be stronger and more convincing.

Finally, the argument declares that centralizing the Apogee Company’s operations would improve profitability of the company by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Regardless of how strongly this statement might be bolstered by the argument, closer inspection exposes many underlying weaknesses the argument fails to take into consideration. Firstly, there is no guarantee that having one centralized location would cut company costs down; this is due to the many other potentially high cost factors, including purchasing of raw materials/ingredients for products, employee salaries, and renting of the facility. If the new centralized location promotes any of these factors, there is a good chance that having multiple cheaper locations would actually save the company more money than simply having one center of operations. Second, supervision is not a guarantee due to the previously discussed point that closing other locations around the country and centralizing them in 1 location would cause many employees to become disillusioned with working at Apogee Company, and many of them would potentially either leave or work from home, making the overall employee turnout at the company’s location lower than projected. The argument could strengthen itself by countering these potential negative consequences and showcasing that none of them are bound to happen if this single-facility change is put in place.

In conclusion, the argument fails to support its main point due to a combination of weak evidence, flawed arguments, and unsubstantiated claims, thus making it weak and unconvincing. Had the author of the argument reinforced itself with clearer evidence, showed proof that there would be a lack of negative consequences, and not made oversimplified generalizations, the author would have been able to present a much more convincing and well-rounded argument that takes all factors, both negative and positive, into consideration.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and Connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a strong level of coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph is logically organized, and ideas flow smoothly from one to the next. Transitions between points and counterpoints are well-executed, contributing to the overall clarity of the essay. The connection between different sections is generally strong, enhancing the reader's understanding of the argument's weaknesses.

Word Structure: 5/6
The essay exhibits a sophisticated word structure with a variety of sentence structures, making it engaging to read. There is effective use of vocabulary, and the writer demonstrates a strong command of language. However, in a few instances, sentences are overly complex, which may slightly hinder overall clarity. Simplifying a few sentences could enhance readability without compromising depth.

Paragraph Structure and Formation: 5.5/6
The essay is well-organized into clear paragraphs, each addressing specific aspects of the argument. Each paragraph contains a clear topic sentence, supporting details, and a transition to the next point. However, some paragraphs could benefit from more explicit connections to the main thesis, ensuring a consistently strong link between each argument and the overall evaluation.

Language and Grammar: 5/6
The essay maintains a high standard of language and grammar throughout. There are minimal grammatical errors, and the writer effectively conveys complex ideas using precise language. However, there are a few instances of awkward phrasing and minor errors that, when revised, would further polish the essay.

Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5.5/6
The essay employs a rich and varied vocabulary, contributing to the overall quality of expression. The writer effectively conveys nuanced meanings and chooses words carefully to enhance the persuasiveness of the critique. Slight improvements in the use of specific terminology related to business operations could further strengthen the argument.

Overall, the essay is well-structured and articulates a thorough evaluation of the given argument. With some minor adjustments in sentence complexity, paragraph connections, and vocabulary precision, the essay could reach an even higher level of effectiveness and clarity.

AnirudhGoda · Answer

AWA - Apogee company

Question - “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.”

Response - The argument claims that centralisation of all functions of the Apogee Company will improve profitability by cutting costs and help maintain better supervision of all employees. The conclusion is based on the premise that at a time when Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, the company was more profitable than today. The conclusion is based on an assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that centralised operations will reduce costs and improve profitability. The argument does not mention that number of employees working out of various locations who will have to be accommodated at a single location which will increase the cost of operations of the central office and the feasibility of the same has to be checked for cost before assuming that centralising operations will reduce costs. The argument fails to mention other factors for example the number of locations, number of employees, and the geographical presence of the company.

Second, the argument could have been much clearer if it mentions any evidence for a decrease in the productivity of employees. The argument states that centralisation helps better supervision of all employees but if there is no decrease in the productivity of the employees, a centralisation will not improve productivity and may affect employee morale and the functioning of the company. The argument fails to mention the current state of supervision and control the company exercises over its employees and without this evidence, the assumption that centralisation will lead to better supervision would not hold true.

Finally, the argument fails to mention one of the key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated is the reason for the decrease in profitability. The argument assumes that this is an account of decentralisation but there could be other factors such as increasing in other costs of the company, decrease in demand, industry competition among others. The argument does not mention the industry in which Apogee Company operates in which will be an important factor in analysing if there are any business or industry reasons for the decrease in profitability. If Apogee Company operates in an industry where decentralised operations is required, centralising operations would be detrimental to the company from a long term perspective.

Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and Connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates strong coherence and connectivity. The ideas are logically organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The essay effectively transitions between sentences and paragraphs, maintaining a smooth flow of thought throughout. There is a good connection between the premises and the counterarguments, contributing to the overall coherence.

Word Structure: 5.5/6
The word structure is well-developed, with a variety of sentence structures used to articulate the author's points. The essay effectively uses vocabulary to convey ideas and arguments. There are a few instances where sentence structures could be further varied for enhanced fluency, but overall, the word structure contributes positively to the essay.

Paragraph Structure and Formation: 5.5/6
The essay exhibits a strong paragraph structure and formation. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and is well-developed, providing thorough analysis and supporting details. The essay effectively transitions between paragraphs, contributing to the overall coherence. Minor improvements in transitioning could enhance the paragraph structure further.

Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The language and grammar usage are strong overall. The essay is written in a formal tone, and grammar is mostly correct. There are a few instances where sentence construction could be refined for clarity, and some minor grammatical errors are present. However, these do not significantly impede comprehension, and the overall language use is effective.  There are a number of spelling mistakes that need to be rectified.

Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5.5/6
The vocabulary and word expression are commendable. The essay utilizes a diverse range of vocabulary, contributing to the clarity and precision of the argument. There are a few places where more precise or nuanced word choices could be beneficial, but the overall vocabulary usage enhances the essay's quality.

The essay is well-structured and effectively analyzes the flaws in the argument. It demonstrates a strong command of language and exhibits proficiency in addressing coherence, word structure, paragraph formation, language, and vocabulary.

PS: Use American English to avoid spelling mistakes.

When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards