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 28Magoosh Black Friday Sale
08:00 PM PST
-11:00 PM PST
This month save 30% on GMAT prep plans with the code BLACKFRI30GMAT during our Black Friday sale from Tuesday, 11/22 to Monday, 11/28.
Nov 28Don't miss Manhattan Prep's biggest sale of the year!
08:00 PM EST
-10:00 PM EST
Get 25% off select GMAT, GRE for MBA, and Executive Assessment prep, only for a limited time. Already headed to business school? Save 30% on all Business Fundamentals powered by Kaplan courses. Offers end November 28th.
Nov 27Q&A with ISB Adcom | Hosted by Experts' Global
06:00 PM IST
-07:30 PM IST
You can win 1 of 5 Experts Global Test Packs. Ask Me Anything session with ISB Admissions Team • How to build a Strong application to ISB • Know more about Holistic Evaluation at ISB - The weightage assigned to different aspects of your profile and more.
Nov 29Q&A with HEC Paris MBA AdCom & Students | HEC Rankings, Acceptance Rates, GMAT Score, Placements
07:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
n this video, we talk to admission team members and current students of HEC Paris MBA program. We talk to them about MBA experience at HEC Paris, ranking, career opportunities in Europe, application essays, deadlines, acceptance rate, etc.- Nov 30
Q&A with Kelley (Indiana) MBA AdCom & Students | Rankings, Acceptance Rates, GMAT Score, Placements
07:00 AM PST
-08:00 AM PST
Hear Kelley MBAs discuss why they chose Kelley and how their experiences in the program are enabling them to achieve their career goals. The webinar, November 30 at 10 a.m. ET 
Nov 30All GMAT Practice tests at just $14.95
08:00 PM PST
-09:00 PM PST
Use this Black Friday to make your GMAT prep BRIGHTER. Use Code - GMATBFCM to get any individual practice test at just $14.95.
Nov 30Grab TTP's Biggest Discount of the Year
08:00 PM EST
-11:59 PM EST
Take advantage of TTP's biggest discount of the year and get everybody's favorite 5-star rated GMAT course for 20% off. Just use the coupon BlackFriday20 at checkout.
Dec 03Action Plan to Score 760 on the GMAT
07:00 AM PST
-09:00 AM PST
Attend the upcoming GMAT Strategy masterclass to get your personalized study plan that defines the exact metrics you need to hit to score GMAT 760 ‘effectively’.- Dec 04
Master 700-level Inequalities and Absolute Value Questions
07:00 AM PST
-09:00 AM PST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 04How Mantavya Got a 770 on GMAT (In Just 2 Months) with GMATWhiz
11:30 AM EST
-12:30 PM EST
770 on the GMAT? It's a goal that many students aspire to achieve, but only 1% of all test takers receive it. Watch this interview to learn how Mantavya scored a remarkable 770 GMAT with just 2 months of preparation in first attempt.
When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
15 Jun 2012, 03:11
15 Jun 2012, 03:11
10
Kudos
6
Bookmarks
AWA 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 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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
Current Student
Joined: 02 Jul 2016
Posts: 169
Location: India
Schools: Imperial '22 (D) MBS '22 (A) Tepper '23 (D) Olin '23 (D) Simon '23 (D) Scheller (D) Carroll Katz '23 (A$) Kelley '23 (D) Babson (A$) WBS (D) Smeal (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V28
GPA: 4
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
30 May 2018, 11:08
30 May 2018, 11:08
Arunim wrote:
AWA 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 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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
Can anybody give feedback for the following AWA? Also please tell me what approx score I may get for this.
Thanks
“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.
In the given argument the author is recommending Apogee Company to operate from a single location to cut costs and improve profits. The above argument, though seems sound, has a number of flaws associated with it.
Firstly, the author has not cited anywhere in the argument the reasons for the reduction in profits. There can be many reasons such as recession, global market turbulence, etc. Hence, without knowing the actual reasons causing the reduction in profits, it will be incorrect to suggest any course of action. It is possible that there a global decline in profits which is not related to costs or that the level of profits for Apogee Company is still better than many of the competing firms dealing in the same business. Hence, proper reasons for this decline need to be investigated.
Secondly, the recommendation given by author to operate from a single location and close down its filed offices is flawed. The expansion of operations may, in fact, help Apogee Company to enter into new business avenues and expand its business. By operating from different locations, the company will be able to understand about different customer requirements .So assuming that operating from one location is the reason for the decrease in profits is wrong.
Because the argument leaves out key issues it is not well reasoned. Therefore, if the argument included the above points it would have been more thorough and convincing.
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
24 Jul 2018, 18:06
24 Jul 2018, 18:06
4
Kudos
Hi everyone,
Here is my take on the essay for sharing purposes
------------------------
The argument claims that by closing down its field offices and by working from a single location, Apogee would be able to improve profitability and main better supervision of its employees. However, the argument is unconvincing as it suffers from several obvious flaws.
Firstly, the argument makes use of the current profitability of its field offices to conclude that having a single location work arrangement is better. However, this assumption is lacks substantiation. Perhaps Apogee had just expended its operations to multiple locations and that these field offices have yet to stabilize its operations and realize its full potential. To strengthen this point, the author should include more relevant information such as timeline and profit trends across several months.
Secondly, the author claims that by conducting all of its operations from a single location, profitability will improve due to reduced costs. However, this claim is definitely unfounded and could in fact result in an opposite effect. Perhaps the company has its operations spread across several countries, thus having only a single centralized office could drive up cost due to all the long-distance travelling required. To strengthen this point, the author should include information to suggest that its field offices were unnecessary in the present scope of operations.
Finally, the author also claims that having a centralized office will result in better supervision of its employees. Again, this claim is stretched. Perhaps the nature of work in Apogee requires its employees to be out in the field most of the time, and that Apogee has expended to multiple overseas markets. Having a centralized location would make it harder to monitor its field agents given the further proximity between the office and the field. To strengthen this point, the author should include information to suggest that nature of work allows for the better supervision of employees from a single location.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to a severe lack of substantiating information. In order to access the merits of each point made, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. The argument can be significantly strengthened by introducing sound evidence as described above.
Here is my take on the essay for sharing purposes
------------------------
The argument claims that by closing down its field offices and by working from a single location, Apogee would be able to improve profitability and main better supervision of its employees. However, the argument is unconvincing as it suffers from several obvious flaws.
Firstly, the argument makes use of the current profitability of its field offices to conclude that having a single location work arrangement is better. However, this assumption is lacks substantiation. Perhaps Apogee had just expended its operations to multiple locations and that these field offices have yet to stabilize its operations and realize its full potential. To strengthen this point, the author should include more relevant information such as timeline and profit trends across several months.
Secondly, the author claims that by conducting all of its operations from a single location, profitability will improve due to reduced costs. However, this claim is definitely unfounded and could in fact result in an opposite effect. Perhaps the company has its operations spread across several countries, thus having only a single centralized office could drive up cost due to all the long-distance travelling required. To strengthen this point, the author should include information to suggest that its field offices were unnecessary in the present scope of operations.
Finally, the author also claims that having a centralized office will result in better supervision of its employees. Again, this claim is stretched. Perhaps the nature of work in Apogee requires its employees to be out in the field most of the time, and that Apogee has expended to multiple overseas markets. Having a centralized location would make it harder to monitor its field agents given the further proximity between the office and the field. To strengthen this point, the author should include information to suggest that nature of work allows for the better supervision of employees from a single location.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to a severe lack of substantiating information. In order to access the merits of each point made, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. The argument can be significantly strengthened by introducing sound evidence as described above.
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 28
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
25 Sep 2019, 03:36
25 Sep 2019, 03:36
1
Kudos
Hi, would be great to receive some pointers on my AWA. I used chinesburned's template.
Thanks!
"The argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company’s operations would lead to better profitability due to cost cuts and help Apogee Company maintain better supervision of all its employees. The company states that when all its operations were based out of one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and had several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that centralization will lead to profitability because it cut costs. This statement is a stretch and cannot be substantiated in any way. It isn’t supported with any data or projections. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities reduced their costs by decentralizing their operations. For example, Dish corporation, a top accounting firm in United States of America, is an organization which decentralized its operations to the capital of each state instead of having all its employees work from New York. This benefited the company in serving its customers all over the country readily and without any delays which led to increased business. The company didn’t have to maintain a large head office to house all its employees under one roof which saved the company from having majority of its funds blocked in rent. The employees had greater job satisfaction as those who were not from New York City, were able to choose the offices in their home state and small teams with a designated manager made operations smoother. All these factors led to a greater profitability for Dish. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how centralization of operations would lead to an overall minimized cost.
Second the argument claims that centralization will lead to better supervision of all employees. This again is a very weak and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between quality of supervision and centralization of operations. In, fact the argument does not even state the quality of its supervision of employees when Apogee Corporation had all its operations in one location, nor does it state the quality of its supervision of employees at the currently maintained various locations. If any such correlation had been shown between employee supervision and centralization of operations, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that decentralization led to poor employee supervision, the argument could have been strengthened further.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company should close its field offices and conduct operations from a single location. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how centralized operations are better than decentralized operations. Without convincing and supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where currently centralization of operations has done a great job, one is left with the impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."
Thanks!
"The argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company’s operations would lead to better profitability due to cost cuts and help Apogee Company maintain better supervision of all its employees. The company states that when all its operations were based out of one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and had several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that centralization will lead to profitability because it cut costs. This statement is a stretch and cannot be substantiated in any way. It isn’t supported with any data or projections. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities reduced their costs by decentralizing their operations. For example, Dish corporation, a top accounting firm in United States of America, is an organization which decentralized its operations to the capital of each state instead of having all its employees work from New York. This benefited the company in serving its customers all over the country readily and without any delays which led to increased business. The company didn’t have to maintain a large head office to house all its employees under one roof which saved the company from having majority of its funds blocked in rent. The employees had greater job satisfaction as those who were not from New York City, were able to choose the offices in their home state and small teams with a designated manager made operations smoother. All these factors led to a greater profitability for Dish. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how centralization of operations would lead to an overall minimized cost.
Second the argument claims that centralization will lead to better supervision of all employees. This again is a very weak and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between quality of supervision and centralization of operations. In, fact the argument does not even state the quality of its supervision of employees when Apogee Corporation had all its operations in one location, nor does it state the quality of its supervision of employees at the currently maintained various locations. If any such correlation had been shown between employee supervision and centralization of operations, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that decentralization led to poor employee supervision, the argument could have been strengthened further.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company should close its field offices and conduct operations from a single location. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how centralized operations are better than decentralized operations. Without convincing and supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where currently centralization of operations has done a great job, one is left with the impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."
Intern
Joined: 05 Feb 2020
Status:When going gets tough, tough gets going_GMAT2020
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
WE:Engineering (Military & Defense)
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
20 Apr 2020, 04:19
20 Apr 2020, 04:19
2
Kudos
Arunim wrote:
AWA 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 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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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.
Essay:
The argument claimed by business department of the Apogee Company in a memorandum that centralization of the company and closing down its field offices is necessary to maximize the company’s profits and minimize the costs. They have wrongly used the centralization concept. Can a company that has expanded through a wide network of field offices can suddenly shut down just because it has failed to raise profits. Even though their claim may well have a merit, the business department presents a poorly and weak reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that it offers, we cannot accept their argument as valid.
The primary issue with the business department’s reasoning lies in their unsubstantiated premises. Some field offices may be profitable and some may be in loss making. The ones which are profitable cannot be shut down. Also instead of closing down the offices, it is better to analyze the problems with respect to internal and external. Internal problems such as corrupt or rigid management, inefficient workers, large attrition rate or sudden hiring rate, difficult working conditions. External problems such as any force majeure incidents such as flood, drought, earthquake, etc, poor customer’s response or competitor’s good hold on the market. Depending on the quantum of problem, it is better to list down the effective strategy with a set target date for the particular loss making office.
The secondary issue in the argument lies in the cost-benefit analysis. The business department has failed to explicitly mention that whether proper pros and cons were considered in the cost sheet. Initially, the cost benefit may seem to be high. Local field offices would have been much effective in handling local customers and vendors. If centralization of the company is adopted, then the employers have to travel for longer distances for business meetings, for providing services to the customers or for inspection at manufacturer’s works .Certainly, the cost will be higher and thus minimizing the profits as expected initially. The business development’s premises, the basis for their argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render their conclusion as unacceptable.
The tertiary issue in the argument is high probability of getting a bad publicity. Simply closing the field offices for the process of cost-cutting will garner negative publicity in the market. The benefit will go to its competitors. Hence, the company will fall into a more vicious circle of reduced profit and bad reputation in the market. Hence, the business development weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between increasing profits and closing down the field offices for centralization, that the department assume to be exists.
While the business department has several key issues in its argument’s premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The departments’ main objective was to identify the main area of loss in the company. If centralization was the only solution, the business department could have given more statistical data. It could have explained that centralized management would take the ultimatum decisions and could have provided an efficient business strategy. They could have suggested ways to handle the public attention for the closure of local field offices.
In sum, the business development’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render their conclusion as invalid. They have overlooked the above addressed points. If the business development truly hopes to change its readers’ mind on the issue, they would have to largely restructure their argument, fix the flaws in their logic, clearly explicate their assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without, all these things, their poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
***************Please give feedback on my take***
The argument presented in the memorandum by the business department of Apogee Company is not considering several factors and flawed to a greater extent, it fails to justify the decision with numbers, past experience or example of a similar company.
Firstly, the company is declaring that the sole way of enhancing profitability is to operate from a single location. It does not evaluate or clarifies that what were the factors based on which earlier profitability was less, whether there was a shortage of funds or non-availability of required resources. Further, consolidating all resources at one place increases the vulnerability of single-point failure leading which may lead to failure of the entire organisation without any redundancy. Secondly, the company is recommending closing down of all field offices and not considering that at least field marketing and selling offices would still be required to sustain the ecosystem. Thirdly, the concept of centralization can also be realized in a modern-day world using methods such as tele video conferencing rather co-locating every singly resources and analysis of company performance give a substantial idea about efficiency. Additionally, it is extremely important that decision-making powers are conferred at each level of hierarchy in order to avoid delay in decision making which is very prominent in the proposed line organization.
The company has failed to make a detailed analysis of the problem and has drawn a conclusion based on superficial fact. It vital that above-mentioned factors be examined with in-depth analysis prior executing the decision.
_________________
*************Krishh*******************
It's all about dreams because they are free...
*************************************
It's all about dreams because they are free...
*************************************
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
18 Aug 2020, 02:59
18 Aug 2020, 02:59
Please give me feed back on my essay thanks in advance
The author concludes that since the company was more successful when it had all of its operations in one place, it should, nowadays, adopt a centralized management approach. However, the conclusion relies on assumptions for which the author does not supply clear evidence.
First, the argument that the company may reach its past success by adopting the same centralized management strategy is rooted in the assumption that the company is evolving in the same conditions as in the past. In fact, these days the company may be facing more competitors than when it had all of its operations in one location. Thus, the increase in competition may explain why the company was more profitable and that its past success is not due to the management approach of the company.
Second, the author assumes that adopting a centralized strategy will be more profitable. As the argument stands, it is highly possible that implementing the strategy will require the use of technologies that are highly expensive like management systems. As a result, this approach may not be as profitable as expected.
Finally, the author readily assumes that supervising the employees is better by using a centralized approach than by using field offices. However, in the case where the company has subsidiaries located in another country Apogee company may face several issues like time differences. As a result, it is better to handle the subsidiaries
located in another country by using field offices.
To strengthen the argument, the author must provide several pieces of evidence to support his assumptions. First of all, the author should compare the company's environment in the past and today. The author could also make a stronger case by specifying how the new control approach will be implemented exactly and whether it will take into consideration the possible subsidiaries of Apogee company that is located in another country.
The author concludes that since the company was more successful when it had all of its operations in one place, it should, nowadays, adopt a centralized management approach. However, the conclusion relies on assumptions for which the author does not supply clear evidence.
First, the argument that the company may reach its past success by adopting the same centralized management strategy is rooted in the assumption that the company is evolving in the same conditions as in the past. In fact, these days the company may be facing more competitors than when it had all of its operations in one location. Thus, the increase in competition may explain why the company was more profitable and that its past success is not due to the management approach of the company.
Second, the author assumes that adopting a centralized strategy will be more profitable. As the argument stands, it is highly possible that implementing the strategy will require the use of technologies that are highly expensive like management systems. As a result, this approach may not be as profitable as expected.
Finally, the author readily assumes that supervising the employees is better by using a centralized approach than by using field offices. However, in the case where the company has subsidiaries located in another country Apogee company may face several issues like time differences. As a result, it is better to handle the subsidiaries
located in another country by using field offices.
To strengthen the argument, the author must provide several pieces of evidence to support his assumptions. First of all, the author should compare the company's environment in the past and today. The author could also make a stronger case by specifying how the new control approach will be implemented exactly and whether it will take into consideration the possible subsidiaries of Apogee company that is located in another country.
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2019
Posts: 123
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36 (Online) 
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
07 Sep 2020, 10:41
07 Sep 2020, 10:41
My first attempt at AWA. Can someone review and comment if possible ?
The argument states that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. This conclusion is based on the reasoning that such centralization would improve the profitability of the company by cutting the costs and the centralization would also help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Also, the argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today when it had all its operations in one location.
However, stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Also, there is faulty assumption that since it was the more profitable in the past, the same will be the case even now. In addition to that it does not clearly explain how the better supervision of employees is beneficial.
First, while emphasizing on the cost reduction due to centralization, the argument overlooks other costs that may have been reduced due to de-centralization. For example, the centralization may reduce the operating costs of the field offices, but the field offices actually promoted better customer connect and reach, for which in the absence of such offices, employees would have to travel to customer locations This would incur additional travel expenses. Also, more than just being a cost factor, having multiple field offices helps to establish the company as having its footprint in various geo locations that would give the company a competitive advantage.
Secondly, it readily assumes that since operating with a single office was profitable in the past, the same would be the case now. This is a faulty assumption without any solid evidence or facts to substantiate this assumption. The argument here fails to consider the scale of operation and operating conditions in the past and now. For example, may be the company felt that expanding its offices may help attract more diverse talent and better cater to the local population, thereby expanding the geo locations it serves. Without answers to these questions, we cannot efficiently determine if it is beneficial to operate out of a single location.
Finally, it does not explain how better supervision is beneficial.
Does better supervision improve productivity?
Whether this may lead to micro-management thereby lowering the morale of the employees and reducing the motivation for creativity?
Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is open for misinterpretation.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been better strengthened if the author clearly mentioned the relevant facts, and clearly backed the assumptions with substantial evidence. So, before concluding that centralization is more profitable, it would be better to consider the factors mentioned above.
The argument states that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. This conclusion is based on the reasoning that such centralization would improve the profitability of the company by cutting the costs and the centralization would also help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Also, the argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today when it had all its operations in one location.
However, stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Also, there is faulty assumption that since it was the more profitable in the past, the same will be the case even now. In addition to that it does not clearly explain how the better supervision of employees is beneficial.
First, while emphasizing on the cost reduction due to centralization, the argument overlooks other costs that may have been reduced due to de-centralization. For example, the centralization may reduce the operating costs of the field offices, but the field offices actually promoted better customer connect and reach, for which in the absence of such offices, employees would have to travel to customer locations This would incur additional travel expenses. Also, more than just being a cost factor, having multiple field offices helps to establish the company as having its footprint in various geo locations that would give the company a competitive advantage.
Secondly, it readily assumes that since operating with a single office was profitable in the past, the same would be the case now. This is a faulty assumption without any solid evidence or facts to substantiate this assumption. The argument here fails to consider the scale of operation and operating conditions in the past and now. For example, may be the company felt that expanding its offices may help attract more diverse talent and better cater to the local population, thereby expanding the geo locations it serves. Without answers to these questions, we cannot efficiently determine if it is beneficial to operate out of a single location.
Finally, it does not explain how better supervision is beneficial.
Does better supervision improve productivity?
Whether this may lead to micro-management thereby lowering the morale of the employees and reducing the motivation for creativity?
Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is open for misinterpretation.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been better strengthened if the author clearly mentioned the relevant facts, and clearly backed the assumptions with substantial evidence. So, before concluding that centralization is more profitable, it would be better to consider the factors mentioned above.
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Posts: 10
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
06 Jan 2022, 12:44
06 Jan 2022, 12:44
1
Bookmarks
Please evaluate my response Sajjad1994
The given memorandum argues that centralization of Apogee's business would lead to higher profits through lower costs and improved employee supervision. This argument is based on the premise that when Apogee had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below, and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee was more profitable when it had all operations in one location, than it is today, the company should therefore close down its field offices and conduct all its business from a single location. This is a weak claim because here the author incorrectly assumes that centralization of operations is the cause of higher profits, when in fact, it is possible that higher profits in the past was not due to the centralized operations, but rather due to other factors in favor of the company at that time. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide additional evidence that gives concrete grounds for establishing the stated premise.
Secondly, the author claims that since the company was more profitable in the past due to centralized process, then the company will again become more profitable if it closes down its field operations. This claim is weak and undermines the argument because here the author assumes that just because a certain event happened in the past, it will happen in the future too. The author fails to consider that there could be various factors affecting profitability of the business in future. What if the economic environment now requires the business to have wide-spread operations, rather than centralized ones? What if, contrary to the claim, by closing its regional offices, the company loses a big chunk of its business, thereby leading to heavy losses? Until the author addresses these questions with additional evidences, the argument remains questionable.
Finally, the author concludes post centralization, profitability will improve by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This is an over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions that centralization will definitely lead to cost cutting and also lead to better employee supervision. If the central location is required to be expanded to absorb the operations or workforce of the regional offices, then it would lead to additional costs to be incurred by the company to facilitate the additional requirements. Moreover, if the nature of business requires certain employees to travel to regional or remote locations to increase sales, then the company would not be able to supervise these employees from the central location as effectively as it could from regional locations. To strengthen the argument the author must provide additional evidence that address these potential unintended drawbacks of the proposed conclusion.
To summarize, the argument in its current state suffers from various flaws, such as incorrect assumption of centralized operations to be a cause of higher profits, not considering various factors other than centralized operations that could affect the profitability and over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions. The argument could be strengthened if more concrete evidences and information are provided, as stated above. In the absence of the required information, the argument stands weak and vulnerable to criticism.
The given memorandum argues that centralization of Apogee's business would lead to higher profits through lower costs and improved employee supervision. This argument is based on the premise that when Apogee had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below, and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee was more profitable when it had all operations in one location, than it is today, the company should therefore close down its field offices and conduct all its business from a single location. This is a weak claim because here the author incorrectly assumes that centralization of operations is the cause of higher profits, when in fact, it is possible that higher profits in the past was not due to the centralized operations, but rather due to other factors in favor of the company at that time. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide additional evidence that gives concrete grounds for establishing the stated premise.
Secondly, the author claims that since the company was more profitable in the past due to centralized process, then the company will again become more profitable if it closes down its field operations. This claim is weak and undermines the argument because here the author assumes that just because a certain event happened in the past, it will happen in the future too. The author fails to consider that there could be various factors affecting profitability of the business in future. What if the economic environment now requires the business to have wide-spread operations, rather than centralized ones? What if, contrary to the claim, by closing its regional offices, the company loses a big chunk of its business, thereby leading to heavy losses? Until the author addresses these questions with additional evidences, the argument remains questionable.
Finally, the author concludes post centralization, profitability will improve by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This is an over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions that centralization will definitely lead to cost cutting and also lead to better employee supervision. If the central location is required to be expanded to absorb the operations or workforce of the regional offices, then it would lead to additional costs to be incurred by the company to facilitate the additional requirements. Moreover, if the nature of business requires certain employees to travel to regional or remote locations to increase sales, then the company would not be able to supervise these employees from the central location as effectively as it could from regional locations. To strengthen the argument the author must provide additional evidence that address these potential unintended drawbacks of the proposed conclusion.
To summarize, the argument in its current state suffers from various flaws, such as incorrect assumption of centralized operations to be a cause of higher profits, not considering various factors other than centralized operations that could affect the profitability and over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions. The argument could be strengthened if more concrete evidences and information are provided, as stated above. In the absence of the required information, the argument stands weak and vulnerable to criticism.
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
07 Jan 2022, 10:28
07 Jan 2022, 10:28
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
KM121132 wrote:
Please evaluate my response Sajjad1994
The given memorandum argues that centralization of Apogee's business would lead to higher profits through lower costs and improved employee supervision. This argument is based on the premise that when Apogee had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below, and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee was more profitable when it had all operations in one location, than it is today, the company should therefore close down its field offices and conduct all its business from a single location. This is a weak claim because here the author incorrectly assumes that centralization of operations is the cause of higher profits, when in fact, it is possible that higher profits in the past was not due to the centralized operations, but rather due to other factors in favor of the company at that time. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide additional evidence that gives concrete grounds for establishing the stated premise.
Secondly, the author claims that since the company was more profitable in the past due to centralized process, then the company will again become more profitable if it closes down its field operations. This claim is weak and undermines the argument because here the author assumes that just because a certain event happened in the past, it will happen in the future too. The author fails to consider that there could be various factors affecting profitability of the business in future. What if the economic environment now requires the business to have wide-spread operations, rather than centralized ones? What if, contrary to the claim, by closing its regional offices, the company loses a big chunk of its business, thereby leading to heavy losses? Until the author addresses these questions with additional evidences, the argument remains questionable.
Finally, the author concludes post centralization, profitability will improve by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This is an over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions that centralization will definitely lead to cost cutting and also lead to better employee supervision. If the central location is required to be expanded to absorb the operations or workforce of the regional offices, then it would lead to additional costs to be incurred by the company to facilitate the additional requirements. Moreover, if the nature of business requires certain employees to travel to regional or remote locations to increase sales, then the company would not be able to supervise these employees from the central location as effectively as it could from regional locations. To strengthen the argument the author must provide additional evidence that address these potential unintended drawbacks of the proposed conclusion.
To summarize, the argument in its current state suffers from various flaws, such as incorrect assumption of centralized operations to be a cause of higher profits, not considering various factors other than centralized operations that could affect the profitability and over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions. The argument could be strengthened if more concrete evidences and information are provided, as stated above. In the absence of the required information, the argument stands weak and vulnerable to criticism.
The given memorandum argues that centralization of Apogee's business would lead to higher profits through lower costs and improved employee supervision. This argument is based on the premise that when Apogee had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below, and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee was more profitable when it had all operations in one location, than it is today, the company should therefore close down its field offices and conduct all its business from a single location. This is a weak claim because here the author incorrectly assumes that centralization of operations is the cause of higher profits, when in fact, it is possible that higher profits in the past was not due to the centralized operations, but rather due to other factors in favor of the company at that time. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide additional evidence that gives concrete grounds for establishing the stated premise.
Secondly, the author claims that since the company was more profitable in the past due to centralized process, then the company will again become more profitable if it closes down its field operations. This claim is weak and undermines the argument because here the author assumes that just because a certain event happened in the past, it will happen in the future too. The author fails to consider that there could be various factors affecting profitability of the business in future. What if the economic environment now requires the business to have wide-spread operations, rather than centralized ones? What if, contrary to the claim, by closing its regional offices, the company loses a big chunk of its business, thereby leading to heavy losses? Until the author addresses these questions with additional evidences, the argument remains questionable.
Finally, the author concludes post centralization, profitability will improve by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This is an over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions that centralization will definitely lead to cost cutting and also lead to better employee supervision. If the central location is required to be expanded to absorb the operations or workforce of the regional offices, then it would lead to additional costs to be incurred by the company to facilitate the additional requirements. Moreover, if the nature of business requires certain employees to travel to regional or remote locations to increase sales, then the company would not be able to supervise these employees from the central location as effectively as it could from regional locations. To strengthen the argument the author must provide additional evidence that address these potential unintended drawbacks of the proposed conclusion.
To summarize, the argument in its current state suffers from various flaws, such as incorrect assumption of centralized operations to be a cause of higher profits, not considering various factors other than centralized operations that could affect the profitability and over-optimistic conclusion based on flawed assumptions. The argument could be strengthened if more concrete evidences and information are provided, as stated above. In the absence of the required information, the argument stands weak and vulnerable to criticism.
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
29 Mar 2022, 08:51
29 Mar 2022, 08:51
Please rate my Response Sajjad1994
The given memorandum argues that Centralization of Apogee Company business shall improve profitability by cutting costs and employees better supervision. The argument is based on the premise that one company had all its operations on one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee Company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location than it is today , the company should therefore close its field offices and conduct all operations from single location . Author assumes profit is changed by changing the cost however does not provide any evidence regarding revenues component of profitability. It is quite plausible that offices might have brought additional revenues for the company and just by cutting cost on closing the offices may prove loss of revenue on account of closure.
Secondly, author states by concentration of office on single location might improve profitability as happening previously. This assumption is not to necessary to substantiate the claim as no evidence is given by author regarding customer base, price change due to market conditions etc. at that particular location and it may have changed in some time.
Thirdly, author states that profit would improve by concentration of operation offices at single location by cutting cost incurred on different offices and employee supervision. This evidence is also not full proof to substantiate the claim made by author as no time frame has been given by author regarding opening or operation of offices. Generally, when business expands, it takes time for business to get break even as company is building is customer base and expanding and company might incur significant amount in early years however as years pass by revenue may increase drastically with similar cost leading to increased profits.
In summary argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing and can be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. In order to assess the merit of certain situation , it is necessary to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
The given memorandum argues that Centralization of Apogee Company business shall improve profitability by cutting costs and employees better supervision. The argument is based on the premise that one company had all its operations on one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee Company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location than it is today , the company should therefore close its field offices and conduct all operations from single location . Author assumes profit is changed by changing the cost however does not provide any evidence regarding revenues component of profitability. It is quite plausible that offices might have brought additional revenues for the company and just by cutting cost on closing the offices may prove loss of revenue on account of closure.
Secondly, author states by concentration of office on single location might improve profitability as happening previously. This assumption is not to necessary to substantiate the claim as no evidence is given by author regarding customer base, price change due to market conditions etc. at that particular location and it may have changed in some time.
Thirdly, author states that profit would improve by concentration of operation offices at single location by cutting cost incurred on different offices and employee supervision. This evidence is also not full proof to substantiate the claim made by author as no time frame has been given by author regarding opening or operation of offices. Generally, when business expands, it takes time for business to get break even as company is building is customer base and expanding and company might incur significant amount in early years however as years pass by revenue may increase drastically with similar cost leading to increased profits.
In summary argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing and can be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. In order to assess the merit of certain situation , it is necessary to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
30 Mar 2022, 05:25
30 Mar 2022, 05:25
Expert Reply
ankitbagla wrote:
Please rate my Response Sajjad1994
The given memorandum argues that Centralization of Apogee Company business shall improve profitability by cutting costs and employees better supervision. The argument is based on the premise that one company had all its operations on one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee Company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location than it is today , the company should therefore close its field offices and conduct all operations from single location . Author assumes profit is changed by changing the cost however does not provide any evidence regarding revenues component of profitability. It is quite plausible that offices might have brought additional revenues for the company and just by cutting cost on closing the offices may prove loss of revenue on account of closure.
Secondly, author states by concentration of office on single location might improve profitability as happening previously. This assumption is not to necessary to substantiate the claim as no evidence is given by author regarding customer base, price change due to market conditions etc. at that particular location and it may have changed in some time.
Thirdly, author states that profit would improve by concentration of operation offices at single location by cutting cost incurred on different offices and employee supervision. This evidence is also not full proof to substantiate the claim made by author as no time frame has been given by author regarding opening or operation of offices. Generally, when business expands, it takes time for business to get break even as company is building is customer base and expanding and company might incur significant amount in early years however as years pass by revenue may increase drastically with similar cost leading to increased profits.
In summary argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing and can be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. In order to assess the merit of certain situation , it is necessary to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
The given memorandum argues that Centralization of Apogee Company business shall improve profitability by cutting costs and employees better supervision. The argument is based on the premise that one company had all its operations on one location, it was more profitable than today. This argument suffers from various logical fallacies, as discussed below and hence is vulnerable to serious criticism.
Firstly, the author states that since Apogee Company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location than it is today , the company should therefore close its field offices and conduct all operations from single location . Author assumes profit is changed by changing the cost however does not provide any evidence regarding revenues component of profitability. It is quite plausible that offices might have brought additional revenues for the company and just by cutting cost on closing the offices may prove loss of revenue on account of closure.
Secondly, author states by concentration of office on single location might improve profitability as happening previously. This assumption is not to necessary to substantiate the claim as no evidence is given by author regarding customer base, price change due to market conditions etc. at that particular location and it may have changed in some time.
Thirdly, author states that profit would improve by concentration of operation offices at single location by cutting cost incurred on different offices and employee supervision. This evidence is also not full proof to substantiate the claim made by author as no time frame has been given by author regarding opening or operation of offices. Generally, when business expands, it takes time for business to get break even as company is building is customer base and expanding and company might incur significant amount in early years however as years pass by revenue may increase drastically with similar cost leading to increased profits.
In summary argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing and can be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. In order to assess the merit of certain situation , it is necessary to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
29 May 2022, 03:57
29 May 2022, 03:57
The first essay I have written in years. Please rate my essay Sajjad1994
The argument claims that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from a single location to cut costs, improve profitability and maintain better supervision of employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence or information.
First, the argument claims that profitability can only be increased by shutting down all field offices and efficient supervision. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Competition from other companies in the similar domain is a major factor which influences profitability. There has been no mention of any rival company in the argument. For example, in the initial years, Apple was not making any substantial profit due to severe competition with Microsoft. But later it brought changes in its products and now Apple is a highly profitable company. Hence, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there are no rival companies.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location. It completely looks over the need for the company to open field offices in the fist place. To cater to the needs of a large number of consumers based in different parts of the country, field offices are important in several businesses. If the argument had provided what type of business it provides it would have been helpful. To illustrate a courier service business needs to have field offices in order to be profitable and successful while an educational technology company which can operate from a single location through online mode.
Finally, there are factors which affect the companies profitability which has not been considered in the argument. Recruitment methods can be improved for better management and supervision. Trainings should be provided to employees so that they become better managers and serve the company well. What is most important is to specify the kind of business the company deals in and whether it is a competitive markets. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, to assess merits of a certain argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, what does the Apogee Company deals in is the most important question. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
The argument claims that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from a single location to cut costs, improve profitability and maintain better supervision of employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence or information.
First, the argument claims that profitability can only be increased by shutting down all field offices and efficient supervision. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Competition from other companies in the similar domain is a major factor which influences profitability. There has been no mention of any rival company in the argument. For example, in the initial years, Apple was not making any substantial profit due to severe competition with Microsoft. But later it brought changes in its products and now Apple is a highly profitable company. Hence, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there are no rival companies.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location. It completely looks over the need for the company to open field offices in the fist place. To cater to the needs of a large number of consumers based in different parts of the country, field offices are important in several businesses. If the argument had provided what type of business it provides it would have been helpful. To illustrate a courier service business needs to have field offices in order to be profitable and successful while an educational technology company which can operate from a single location through online mode.
Finally, there are factors which affect the companies profitability which has not been considered in the argument. Recruitment methods can be improved for better management and supervision. Trainings should be provided to employees so that they become better managers and serve the company well. What is most important is to specify the kind of business the company deals in and whether it is a competitive markets. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, to assess merits of a certain argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, what does the Apogee Company deals in is the most important question. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
29 May 2022, 08:23
29 May 2022, 08:23
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
MissBong wrote:
The first essay I have written in years. Please rate my essay Sajjad1994
The argument claims that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from a single location to cut costs, improve profitability and maintain better supervision of employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence or information.
First, the argument claims that profitability can only be increased by shutting down all field offices and efficient supervision. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Competition from other companies in the similar domain is a major factor which influences profitability. There has been no mention of any rival company in the argument. For example, in the initial years, Apple was not making any substantial profit due to severe competition with Microsoft. But later it brought changes in its products and now Apple is a highly profitable company. Hence, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there are no rival companies.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location. It completely looks over the need for the company to open field offices in the fist place. To cater to the needs of a large number of consumers based in different parts of the country, field offices are important in several businesses. If the argument had provided what type of business it provides it would have been helpful. To illustrate a courier service business needs to have field offices in order to be profitable and successful while an educational technology company which can operate from a single location through online mode.
Finally, there are factors which affect the companies profitability which has not been considered in the argument. Recruitment methods can be improved for better management and supervision. Trainings should be provided to employees so that they become better managers and serve the company well. What is most important is to specify the kind of business the company deals in and whether it is a competitive markets. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, to assess merits of a certain argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, what does the Apogee Company deals in is the most important question. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
The argument claims that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all operations from a single location to cut costs, improve profitability and maintain better supervision of employees. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence or information.
First, the argument claims that profitability can only be increased by shutting down all field offices and efficient supervision. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Competition from other companies in the similar domain is a major factor which influences profitability. There has been no mention of any rival company in the argument. For example, in the initial years, Apple was not making any substantial profit due to severe competition with Microsoft. But later it brought changes in its products and now Apple is a highly profitable company. Hence, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there are no rival companies.
Second, the argument claims that the Apogee Company was more profitable when it operated from a single location. It completely looks over the need for the company to open field offices in the fist place. To cater to the needs of a large number of consumers based in different parts of the country, field offices are important in several businesses. If the argument had provided what type of business it provides it would have been helpful. To illustrate a courier service business needs to have field offices in order to be profitable and successful while an educational technology company which can operate from a single location through online mode.
Finally, there are factors which affect the companies profitability which has not been considered in the argument. Recruitment methods can be improved for better management and supervision. Trainings should be provided to employees so that they become better managers and serve the company well. What is most important is to specify the kind of business the company deals in and whether it is a competitive markets. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, to assess merits of a certain argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, what does the Apogee Company deals in is the most important question. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Posts: 873
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.2
WE:Research (Energy and Utilities)
When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
30 May 2022, 05:52
30 May 2022, 05:52
Hi Sajjad1994,
I hope you are doing great. Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance.
_________________
I hope you are doing great. Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance.
The argument put forth by the Apogee company rests on the unsubstantiated correlation between the company’s multi-locations and associated profit-making and employee supervision. The conclusion reached by the Apogee company lacks clarity as to how it can be ascertained that the steps mentioned in their plan can reach its desired results.
First, the argument rests on an assumption that the company can re-achieve its past glory by reverting back to old methods. Company’s plan rests on the poorly conceived assumption that the current operational requirement, which might pertain to current business practices, might allow closing of all outpost locations. But, the company misses a key point here that the scale of operations now may not be similar to those in pasts. So, by curbing the current outpost locations, the company might accrue more damage than profit. A good example of this could be taken from the books of Uber. Uber recently tried to maximise its profits in Europe by ceasing its operations in China. So were the results of their decision that the company not only lost its footprints in Asia, but it also failed to gain any ground in Europe due to drop in their share price after the China exit.
Second, the argument overlooks the possibility of establishing multi outpost key executives or nodal officers for the supervision of employees without closing all locations. The board of directors can designate nodal officers that can carry out their directions or company’s vision and ensure top notch supervision at their respective locations, as desired by the company’s top brass, without closing those locations.
Third, the argument also miscalculates the possible increase in the attrition rate of employees. For example, as seen in most of the big companies, local work force more often than not makes up the large proportion of the human resource in that location’s branch. By closing that location, many current employees may not necessarily make the move to another city or other location, resulting in the loss of manpower. Thus, there will be no “supervising” or “profit making” if there’s no “employees”.
Therefore, it begs to ask this question that without considering these three key issues stated above, will it be a wise decision to close all location and operate centrally from a single location? If the current standards demand more outreach than the past, then closing outpost location might turn out to be counterproductive. Similarly, overlooking possibilities of installing nodal officers for “better supervision” showcases the ill-conceived plan. And, similarly, if the employees choose not to move to a new location, there would be a bigger problem at the Apogee company’s doorstep.
Hence, if the argument can mitigate abovementioned concerns and present answers to how the company plans to mitigate these issues, the argument could be strengthened. But the argument as it stands now, straddles on poor assumptions and ill-formed decisions.
First, the argument rests on an assumption that the company can re-achieve its past glory by reverting back to old methods. Company’s plan rests on the poorly conceived assumption that the current operational requirement, which might pertain to current business practices, might allow closing of all outpost locations. But, the company misses a key point here that the scale of operations now may not be similar to those in pasts. So, by curbing the current outpost locations, the company might accrue more damage than profit. A good example of this could be taken from the books of Uber. Uber recently tried to maximise its profits in Europe by ceasing its operations in China. So were the results of their decision that the company not only lost its footprints in Asia, but it also failed to gain any ground in Europe due to drop in their share price after the China exit.
Second, the argument overlooks the possibility of establishing multi outpost key executives or nodal officers for the supervision of employees without closing all locations. The board of directors can designate nodal officers that can carry out their directions or company’s vision and ensure top notch supervision at their respective locations, as desired by the company’s top brass, without closing those locations.
Third, the argument also miscalculates the possible increase in the attrition rate of employees. For example, as seen in most of the big companies, local work force more often than not makes up the large proportion of the human resource in that location’s branch. By closing that location, many current employees may not necessarily make the move to another city or other location, resulting in the loss of manpower. Thus, there will be no “supervising” or “profit making” if there’s no “employees”.
Therefore, it begs to ask this question that without considering these three key issues stated above, will it be a wise decision to close all location and operate centrally from a single location? If the current standards demand more outreach than the past, then closing outpost location might turn out to be counterproductive. Similarly, overlooking possibilities of installing nodal officers for “better supervision” showcases the ill-conceived plan. And, similarly, if the employees choose not to move to a new location, there would be a bigger problem at the Apogee company’s doorstep.
Hence, if the argument can mitigate abovementioned concerns and present answers to how the company plans to mitigate these issues, the argument could be strengthened. But the argument as it stands now, straddles on poor assumptions and ill-formed decisions.
_________________
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
30 May 2022, 20:52
30 May 2022, 20:52
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 - 6 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
PyjamaScientist wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994,
I hope you are doing great. Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance.
I hope you are doing great. Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance.
The argument put forth by the Apogee company rests on the unsubstantiated correlation between the company’s multi-locations and associated profit-making and employee supervision. The conclusion reached by the Apogee company lacks clarity as to how it can be ascertained that the steps mentioned in their plan can reach its desired results.
First, the argument rests on an assumption that the company can re-achieve its past glory by reverting back to old methods. Company’s plan rests on the poorly conceived assumption that the current operational requirement, which might pertain to current business practices, might allow closing of all outpost locations. But, the company misses a key point here that the scale of operations now may not be similar to those in pasts. So, by curbing the current outpost locations, the company might accrue more damage than profit. A good example of this could be taken from the books of Uber. Uber recently tried to maximise its profits in Europe by ceasing its operations in China. So were the results of their decision that the company not only lost its footprints in Asia, but it also failed to gain any ground in Europe due to drop in their share price after the China exit.
Second, the argument overlooks the possibility of establishing multi outpost key executives or nodal officers for the supervision of employees without closing all locations. The board of directors can designate nodal officers that can carry out their directions or company’s vision and ensure top notch supervision at their respective locations, as desired by the company’s top brass, without closing those locations.
Third, the argument also miscalculates the possible increase in the attrition rate of employees. For example, as seen in most of the big companies, local work force more often than not makes up the large proportion of the human resource in that location’s branch. By closing that location, many current employees may not necessarily make the move to another city or other location, resulting in the loss of manpower. Thus, there will be no “supervising” or “profit making” if there’s no “employees”.
Therefore, it begs to ask this question that without considering these three key issues stated above, will it be a wise decision to close all location and operate centrally from a single location? If the current standards demand more outreach than the past, then closing outpost location might turn out to be counterproductive. Similarly, overlooking possibilities of installing nodal officers for “better supervision” showcases the ill-conceived plan. And, similarly, if the employees choose not to move to a new location, there would be a bigger problem at the Apogee company’s doorstep.
Hence, if the argument can mitigate abovementioned concerns and present answers to how the company plans to mitigate these issues, the argument could be strengthened. But the argument as it stands now, straddles on poor assumptions and ill-formed decisions.
First, the argument rests on an assumption that the company can re-achieve its past glory by reverting back to old methods. Company’s plan rests on the poorly conceived assumption that the current operational requirement, which might pertain to current business practices, might allow closing of all outpost locations. But, the company misses a key point here that the scale of operations now may not be similar to those in pasts. So, by curbing the current outpost locations, the company might accrue more damage than profit. A good example of this could be taken from the books of Uber. Uber recently tried to maximise its profits in Europe by ceasing its operations in China. So were the results of their decision that the company not only lost its footprints in Asia, but it also failed to gain any ground in Europe due to drop in their share price after the China exit.
Second, the argument overlooks the possibility of establishing multi outpost key executives or nodal officers for the supervision of employees without closing all locations. The board of directors can designate nodal officers that can carry out their directions or company’s vision and ensure top notch supervision at their respective locations, as desired by the company’s top brass, without closing those locations.
Third, the argument also miscalculates the possible increase in the attrition rate of employees. For example, as seen in most of the big companies, local work force more often than not makes up the large proportion of the human resource in that location’s branch. By closing that location, many current employees may not necessarily make the move to another city or other location, resulting in the loss of manpower. Thus, there will be no “supervising” or “profit making” if there’s no “employees”.
Therefore, it begs to ask this question that without considering these three key issues stated above, will it be a wise decision to close all location and operate centrally from a single location? If the current standards demand more outreach than the past, then closing outpost location might turn out to be counterproductive. Similarly, overlooking possibilities of installing nodal officers for “better supervision” showcases the ill-conceived plan. And, similarly, if the employees choose not to move to a new location, there would be a bigger problem at the Apogee company’s doorstep.
Hence, if the argument can mitigate abovementioned concerns and present answers to how the company plans to mitigate these issues, the argument could be strengthened. But the argument as it stands now, straddles on poor assumptions and ill-formed decisions.
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
04 Jun 2022, 02:59
04 Jun 2022, 02:59
[quote="Arunim"]AWA 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 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 when Apogee Company decided to have all its operations in one place it became more profitable. On the basis of that premise it further makes an overconfident conclusion that closing down all of its other field offices and operating from a single location will improve profitability by cutting cost and having better supervision of all employees. Although the argument at first seems pretty logical ,but in reality the argument lacks certain key information as it fails to consider some other key factors that might affect the argument. Without considering those key factors the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak/unconvincing and has certain flaws.
First, the argument provides data/ evidence about the profitability of the company then vs today and it further goes on to say that it was the fact that company had all its operation in one location that helped them to become profitable. The author clearly assumes that it was just one factor (i.e., having all operations at one location) that helped them to increase profitability overall. What if the profitability in a particular locality increased because of some other factors like easy transportation facility, better availability of working staff, stable political conditions in that particular locality vs other localities that gave a boost to profitability of the company overall. The argument fails to consider any of these factors . The argument would be more convincing if we were given more evidence to prove this claim of the author.
Second, the argument claims that it should shut down its offices at all other locations and conduct operations from a single location and doing so will guarantee profits . This is again a weak and unsupported claim made by the author. What if shutting offices in other locations will lead to a further decline in profits. What if the companies main objective is to earn profits by serving wide range of customers and for that it will require to have presence in various other localities as well. If the argument would have provided further evidence relating to other similar businesses where they have proof to make a claim that shutting down other offices in other localities and having all operations under one roof did seem to be profitable, the argument would have been strengthened. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
Finally the argument assumes that because of centralization profitability will increase as they will be able to cut cost and have better supervision over employees. From this statement again it is not clear as to how centralization will lead to better supervision over employees. What if having all employees work together under one roof will lead to confusion and lower productivity of the employees? What if it will be difficult for the manager to supervise so many employees of different departments together ? If these questions are answered we will be able to draw better conclusions.
In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthened or weakened if the author clearly answered the questions stated above and also considered having full knowledge of the other key factors that could give further basis to the conclusion.
Please rate my AWA Sajjad1994
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 when Apogee Company decided to have all its operations in one place it became more profitable. On the basis of that premise it further makes an overconfident conclusion that closing down all of its other field offices and operating from a single location will improve profitability by cutting cost and having better supervision of all employees. Although the argument at first seems pretty logical ,but in reality the argument lacks certain key information as it fails to consider some other key factors that might affect the argument. Without considering those key factors the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak/unconvincing and has certain flaws.
First, the argument provides data/ evidence about the profitability of the company then vs today and it further goes on to say that it was the fact that company had all its operation in one location that helped them to become profitable. The author clearly assumes that it was just one factor (i.e., having all operations at one location) that helped them to increase profitability overall. What if the profitability in a particular locality increased because of some other factors like easy transportation facility, better availability of working staff, stable political conditions in that particular locality vs other localities that gave a boost to profitability of the company overall. The argument fails to consider any of these factors . The argument would be more convincing if we were given more evidence to prove this claim of the author.
Second, the argument claims that it should shut down its offices at all other locations and conduct operations from a single location and doing so will guarantee profits . This is again a weak and unsupported claim made by the author. What if shutting offices in other locations will lead to a further decline in profits. What if the companies main objective is to earn profits by serving wide range of customers and for that it will require to have presence in various other localities as well. If the argument would have provided further evidence relating to other similar businesses where they have proof to make a claim that shutting down other offices in other localities and having all operations under one roof did seem to be profitable, the argument would have been strengthened. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
Finally the argument assumes that because of centralization profitability will increase as they will be able to cut cost and have better supervision over employees. From this statement again it is not clear as to how centralization will lead to better supervision over employees. What if having all employees work together under one roof will lead to confusion and lower productivity of the employees? What if it will be difficult for the manager to supervise so many employees of different departments together ? If these questions are answered we will be able to draw better conclusions.
In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthened or weakened if the author clearly answered the questions stated above and also considered having full knowledge of the other key factors that could give further basis to the conclusion.
Please rate my AWA Sajjad1994
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
04 Jun 2022, 22:37
04 Jun 2022, 22:37
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 4 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 4/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 4/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
Shivani51 wrote:
Arunim wrote:
AWA 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 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 when Apogee Company decided to have all its operations in one place it became more profitable. On the basis of that premise it further makes an overconfident conclusion that closing down all of its other field offices and operating from a single location will improve profitability by cutting cost and having better supervision of all employees. Although the argument at first seems pretty logical ,but in reality the argument lacks certain key information as it fails to consider some other key factors that might affect the argument. Without considering those key factors the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak/unconvincing and has certain flaws.
First, the argument provides data/ evidence about the profitability of the company then vs today and it further goes on to say that it was the fact that company had all its operation in one location that helped them to become profitable. The author clearly assumes that it was just one factor (i.e., having all operations at one location) that helped them to increase profitability overall. What if the profitability in a particular locality increased because of some other factors like easy transportation facility, better availability of working staff, stable political conditions in that particular locality vs other localities that gave a boost to profitability of the company overall. The argument fails to consider any of these factors . The argument would be more convincing if we were given more evidence to prove this claim of the author.
Second, the argument claims that it should shut down its offices at all other locations and conduct operations from a single location and doing so will guarantee profits . This is again a weak and unsupported claim made by the author. What if shutting offices in other locations will lead to a further decline in profits. What if the companies main objective is to earn profits by serving wide range of customers and for that it will require to have presence in various other localities as well. If the argument would have provided further evidence relating to other similar businesses where they have proof to make a claim that shutting down other offices in other localities and having all operations under one roof did seem to be profitable, the argument would have been strengthened. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
Finally the argument assumes that because of centralization profitability will increase as they will be able to cut cost and have better supervision over employees. From this statement again it is not clear as to how centralization will lead to better supervision over employees. What if having all employees work together under one roof will lead to confusion and lower productivity of the employees? What if it will be difficult for the manager to supervise so many employees of different departments together ? If these questions are answered we will be able to draw better conclusions.
In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthened or weakened if the author clearly answered the questions stated above and also considered having full knowledge of the other key factors that could give further basis to the conclusion.
Please rate my AWA Sajjad1994
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 when Apogee Company decided to have all its operations in one place it became more profitable. On the basis of that premise it further makes an overconfident conclusion that closing down all of its other field offices and operating from a single location will improve profitability by cutting cost and having better supervision of all employees. Although the argument at first seems pretty logical ,but in reality the argument lacks certain key information as it fails to consider some other key factors that might affect the argument. Without considering those key factors the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak/unconvincing and has certain flaws.
First, the argument provides data/ evidence about the profitability of the company then vs today and it further goes on to say that it was the fact that company had all its operation in one location that helped them to become profitable. The author clearly assumes that it was just one factor (i.e., having all operations at one location) that helped them to increase profitability overall. What if the profitability in a particular locality increased because of some other factors like easy transportation facility, better availability of working staff, stable political conditions in that particular locality vs other localities that gave a boost to profitability of the company overall. The argument fails to consider any of these factors . The argument would be more convincing if we were given more evidence to prove this claim of the author.
Second, the argument claims that it should shut down its offices at all other locations and conduct operations from a single location and doing so will guarantee profits . This is again a weak and unsupported claim made by the author. What if shutting offices in other locations will lead to a further decline in profits. What if the companies main objective is to earn profits by serving wide range of customers and for that it will require to have presence in various other localities as well. If the argument would have provided further evidence relating to other similar businesses where they have proof to make a claim that shutting down other offices in other localities and having all operations under one roof did seem to be profitable, the argument would have been strengthened. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
Finally the argument assumes that because of centralization profitability will increase as they will be able to cut cost and have better supervision over employees. From this statement again it is not clear as to how centralization will lead to better supervision over employees. What if having all employees work together under one roof will lead to confusion and lower productivity of the employees? What if it will be difficult for the manager to supervise so many employees of different departments together ? If these questions are answered we will be able to draw better conclusions.
In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthened or weakened if the author clearly answered the questions stated above and also considered having full knowledge of the other key factors that could give further basis to the conclusion.
Please rate my AWA Sajjad1994
When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
25 Jul 2022, 04:47
25 Jul 2022, 04:47
Hi Sajjad1994
Please help in evaluating my essay:
The argument claims that Apogee Company should have all it’s operations in one location and close down all its field offices. It claims that doing so will help Apogee Company to improve its profits and would be able to have better supervision of employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that closing down field offices would improve profitability by cutting costs. The statement is a stretch as there could be other expenses that can come in as an alternative to field office space costs and can impact business otherwise. For example, as Apogee Company shuts down it’s field offices, field employees will have to travel to fields to get business done and that will incur cost to company along with wastage of time. Clearly, time can be seen as something worth money, that is not considered in argument.The argument could have been much clearer if it is explicitly stated what other impacts would be there on closing field offices.
Second, the argument claims that conducting operations from one location would help the company with better supervision of employees. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between supervision and office location. While a company would plan to shift employees to a single office, operations could involve field work that would definitely be supervised in the same manner irrespective of the location of the employee. To illustrate, field workers are always on field and are being monitored remotely by their supervisors. If the argument would have provided evidence that each and every type of employee requires the same way of supervision then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, do we need to consider other costs that will increase in conducting operations of the company & do every employee require the same type of supervision are certain unanswered questions. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, other working cost impacts and synergy among employee supervision are such factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Please help in evaluating my essay:
The argument claims that Apogee Company should have all it’s operations in one location and close down all its field offices. It claims that doing so will help Apogee Company to improve its profits and would be able to have better supervision of employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that closing down field offices would improve profitability by cutting costs. The statement is a stretch as there could be other expenses that can come in as an alternative to field office space costs and can impact business otherwise. For example, as Apogee Company shuts down it’s field offices, field employees will have to travel to fields to get business done and that will incur cost to company along with wastage of time. Clearly, time can be seen as something worth money, that is not considered in argument.The argument could have been much clearer if it is explicitly stated what other impacts would be there on closing field offices.
Second, the argument claims that conducting operations from one location would help the company with better supervision of employees. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between supervision and office location. While a company would plan to shift employees to a single office, operations could involve field work that would definitely be supervised in the same manner irrespective of the location of the employee. To illustrate, field workers are always on field and are being monitored remotely by their supervisors. If the argument would have provided evidence that each and every type of employee requires the same way of supervision then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, do we need to consider other costs that will increase in conducting operations of the company & do every employee require the same type of supervision are certain unanswered questions. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, other working cost impacts and synergy among employee supervision are such factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Status:GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 11744
GPA: 3.62
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
25 Jul 2022, 09:52
25 Jul 2022, 09:52
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
Himan2209 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994
Please help in evaluating my essay:
The argument claims that Apogee Company should have all it’s operations in one location and close down all its field offices. It claims that doing so will help Apogee Company to improve its profits and would be able to have better supervision of employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that closing down field offices would improve profitability by cutting costs. The statement is a stretch as there could be other expenses that can come in as an alternative to field office space costs and can impact business otherwise. For example, as Apogee Company shuts down it’s field offices, field employees will have to travel to fields to get business done and that will incur cost to company along with wastage of time. Clearly, time can be seen as something worth money, that is not considered in argument.The argument could have been much clearer if it is explicitly stated what other impacts would be there on closing field offices.
Second, the argument claims that conducting operations from one location would help the company with better supervision of employees. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between supervision and office location. While a company would plan to shift employees to a single office, operations could involve field work that would definitely be supervised in the same manner irrespective of the location of the employee. To illustrate, field workers are always on field and are being monitored remotely by their supervisors. If the argument would have provided evidence that each and every type of employee requires the same way of supervision then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, do we need to consider other costs that will increase in conducting operations of the company & do every employee require the same type of supervision are certain unanswered questions. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, other working cost impacts and synergy among employee supervision are such factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Please help in evaluating my essay:
The argument claims that Apogee Company should have all it’s operations in one location and close down all its field offices. It claims that doing so will help Apogee Company to improve its profits and would be able to have better supervision of employees. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that closing down field offices would improve profitability by cutting costs. The statement is a stretch as there could be other expenses that can come in as an alternative to field office space costs and can impact business otherwise. For example, as Apogee Company shuts down it’s field offices, field employees will have to travel to fields to get business done and that will incur cost to company along with wastage of time. Clearly, time can be seen as something worth money, that is not considered in argument.The argument could have been much clearer if it is explicitly stated what other impacts would be there on closing field offices.
Second, the argument claims that conducting operations from one location would help the company with better supervision of employees. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between supervision and office location. While a company would plan to shift employees to a single office, operations could involve field work that would definitely be supervised in the same manner irrespective of the location of the employee. To illustrate, field workers are always on field and are being monitored remotely by their supervisors. If the argument would have provided evidence that each and every type of employee requires the same way of supervision then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, do we need to consider other costs that will increase in conducting operations of the company & do every employee require the same type of supervision are certain unanswered questions. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, other working cost impacts and synergy among employee supervision are such factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was
[#permalink]
14 Oct 2022, 11:47
14 Oct 2022, 11:47
Hi,
could someone please give some feedback on mine? What could I improve? What should I continue?
The argument claims that by closing its operation in several locations and instead concentrating them in a single location Apogee Company will improve profitability, cut costs and maintain better supervision. Stated in this way the argument fails to recognise several key factors and reveals examples of poor reasoning.
Firstly, the argument fails to consider analyzing the reasons why profits may have declined. This may depend on a variety of other not considered factors.
The overall cost of sales may have increased. Especially with inflation the production costs are likely to have increased resulting in a decrease in profit.
Additionally, profits may have declined due to changes in shopping behavior. External factors such as trends in digitalisation resulting in an increase in e-commerce movement will affect business. If Apogee Company has failed to recognise this and adapt to the current climate, this may have implications on their profit. Furthermore, consumer trends overall may have changed too, in terms of what products consumers are interested in. Apogee Company needs to consider staying up to date with trends with their product line. The overall economic climate is also a factor that Apogee company fails to mention as one of the factors that affects the overall economy as well as businesses as Apogee Company.
Another relevant factor could be the management of the company. Depending on the skills and capabilities of senior management the company will experience fluctuations in profit and business confidence.
Secondly, while closing down locations may cut some costs it needs to be considered that the initial investment into these locations will be lost. Furthermore, analysis will have to be carried out, acquiring knowledge about the financial differences between locations. It could be the case that it would be beneficial for Apogee Company to close some of the less profitable branches but keep open those that do well financially. Therefore, it is key to gain further information on the difference in locations in order for the company to make a financially viable decision.
Finally, it is unlikely for the company’s employees to move to the new location for their job if it is located far away from their current job. Therefore, the company would lose valuable employees and would have to consider costs for new talent acquisition and training.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The argument fails to give enough details of factors relevant to make such decisions. In order to assess the merits of the situation further information on the economic climate, consumer behaviour, management and product would have to be presented.
could someone please give some feedback on mine? What could I improve? What should I continue?
The argument claims that by closing its operation in several locations and instead concentrating them in a single location Apogee Company will improve profitability, cut costs and maintain better supervision. Stated in this way the argument fails to recognise several key factors and reveals examples of poor reasoning.
Firstly, the argument fails to consider analyzing the reasons why profits may have declined. This may depend on a variety of other not considered factors.
The overall cost of sales may have increased. Especially with inflation the production costs are likely to have increased resulting in a decrease in profit.
Additionally, profits may have declined due to changes in shopping behavior. External factors such as trends in digitalisation resulting in an increase in e-commerce movement will affect business. If Apogee Company has failed to recognise this and adapt to the current climate, this may have implications on their profit. Furthermore, consumer trends overall may have changed too, in terms of what products consumers are interested in. Apogee Company needs to consider staying up to date with trends with their product line. The overall economic climate is also a factor that Apogee company fails to mention as one of the factors that affects the overall economy as well as businesses as Apogee Company.
Another relevant factor could be the management of the company. Depending on the skills and capabilities of senior management the company will experience fluctuations in profit and business confidence.
Secondly, while closing down locations may cut some costs it needs to be considered that the initial investment into these locations will be lost. Furthermore, analysis will have to be carried out, acquiring knowledge about the financial differences between locations. It could be the case that it would be beneficial for Apogee Company to close some of the less profitable branches but keep open those that do well financially. Therefore, it is key to gain further information on the difference in locations in order for the company to make a financially viable decision.
Finally, it is unlikely for the company’s employees to move to the new location for their job if it is located far away from their current job. Therefore, the company would lose valuable employees and would have to consider costs for new talent acquisition and training.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The argument fails to give enough details of factors relevant to make such decisions. In order to assess the merits of the situation further information on the economic climate, consumer behaviour, management and product would have to be presented.
gmatclubot
Re: When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was [#permalink]
14 Oct 2022, 11:47
Moderators:
|
|
||
Hi Guest,
Here are updates for you:
ANNOUNCEMENTS
YouTube, Instagram Live, & Chats This Week!
------------------------------------------------------ Nov
27
7:00 AM PDT | 10:00 AM EDT | 08:30 PM IST Everything you would like to know about 2023 MBA Admissions. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Nov
28
10:30am NY | 3:30pm London | 9pm Mumbai Learn How TTP Students, Shanaya and Harrison, Scored 760 on the GMAT ------------------------------------------------------ Nov
29
10:30am NY | 3:30pm London | 9pm Mumbai Achieving Dream Career with HEC Paris: Q&A with AdCom & Students ------------------------------------------------------ Nov
30
10am NY | 3pm London | 8:30pm Mumbai How Kelley’s Professional Development Program can be a Game Changer: Q&A with AdCom & Students ------------------------------------------------------
Tuck at Dartmouth
ESG-Focused First-Year Projects Provide Consulting with ImpactDiscover three FYP projects where Tuck students explored challenges impacting the prison industry, wind turbine manufacturing, and technical carbon removals. Read More
Goizueta MBA at Emory
Goizueta delivers the only top-25 MBA with small classes in a dynamic, global city. Become a forward-focused, strategic leader with the Emory advantage.
AGSM at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE
One of the fastest-growing graduate business schools in Southern California, shaping the future by developing leading thinkers who will stand at the forefront of business growth. MBA Landing | School of Business (ucr.edu) |
