Please help me rate this analytical writing - The Apogee Company

[Dieu.Linh]

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.

In the above argument, the business department of the Apogee Company concludes that the company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location in order to improve profitability. In support of this conclusion, the author cites evidence that previously, the company had all its operations in one location; thus it was more profitable than it is today. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Most conspicuously, operating in one location does not warranty that the profit of the company is increased. It is entirely possible that the worker of the company worked harder and produced more products than today; thus, the company could sell more products and earned more money from those products. Perhaps, the company might have better business strategies in order to improve the quality of its products and compete with their competitors effectively. Good quality products along with the competitive prices would help the company improve its profit. If any of this is true, the argument will become unreasonable. The author should give more detailed comparison about other factors which affect the company’s profit before and after opening more field offices to draw the conclusion.

Secondly, the argument claims that removing the field offices and conducting all the company’s operation from a single location will cut the costs. This assumption is questionable. It is likely that centralization will cost great amount of money. When closing down the field offices, the company may compensate its employees for breaking the contract if the company wants to reduce the number of employees. On the other hand, if the company wants to maintain the number of employees, it has to invest a lot of money in expanding the new single location to provide enough working space for its staffs. Hence, it is not right to conclude that the centralization will cut the cost and thus improve the profit.

Lastly, the author assumes, the company’s profit will be increased by cutting the costs. The argument is unreasonable because there is no specific data about the relationship between profits and costs of the company. It is possible that the costs of the company are too small in compare to the profits. Therefore, cutting costs may not increase the profit of the company. The author should provide more data and statistic about the profits and costs of the company to make the comparison in order to strengthen the argument’s conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should provide more necessary information and specific data and facts to demonstrate that the best way to improve the profit of the company is remove the field offices and concentrate the company’s activities on one location.
[/b]

[Luschen]

Hi, I think you did a pretty good job - your writing is of very high quality with only a few errors. Some of your arguments did not seem that convincing to me though - it seems like cutting costs would be bound to increase profits and your arguments did not convince me otherwise. I think you are missing some possible angles. There are a multitude of factors that could have contributed to Apogee’s being more profitable when they were in one location. Maybe they have grown since then and have not handled their growth efficiently. Maybe the market as a whole is in a downturn and that is the reason why profits are down - for instance if the company makes buggy whips or camera film, no amount of rearranging is going to restore the previous glory days. Also, what about the drawbacks of closing down the branch offices? It might be harder to stay close to their customers and to keep tabs on specific market demands. How can you know what the Vietnamese customers really want if you don’t even have a branch office in Vietnam? Also, is it undeniable that having one main office will allow better supervision of employees? With the internet and monitoring software, telecommunication, and data gathering, the distance you are from your employees matters much less than it did in the past. These are just some ideas I think you may be missing.

@Dieu.Linh

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.

In the above argument, the business department of the Apogee Company concludes that the company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operation from a single location in order to improve profitability. In support of this conclusion, the author cites evidence that previously, the company had all its operations in one location; thus it was [making it] {“thus” only works if the conclusion is obvious from the premise} more profitable than it is today. {maybe add a transition here like “Nevertheless”} The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Most conspicuously, operating in one location does not warranty that the profit of the company is increased. It is entirely possible that the worker[s ] {“employees” sounds better here} of the company worked harder and produced more products than today; thus, the company could sell more products and earned more money from those products. Perhaps, the company might have [used] better business strategies in order to improve the quality of its products and compete with their competitors effectively. Good quality products along with the competitive prices would help the company improve its profit. If any of this is true, the argument will become unreasonable. The author should give more detailed comparison[s ] about other factors which affect the company’s profit before and after opening more field offices[ before drawing] to draw the conclusion.

Secondly, the argument claims that removing the field offices and conducting all the company’s operation[s ] from a single location will cut the costs. This assumption is questionable. It is likely that centralization will cost [a ]great amount of money. When closing down the field offices, the company may compensate its employees for breaking the[ir] contract[s ] if the company wants to reduce the number of employees. On the other hand, if the company wants to maintain the number of employees, it has to invest a lot of money in expanding the new single location to provide enough working space for its staffs.[staff] Hence, it is not right to conclude that the centralization will cut the cost[s ] and thus improve the profit.

Lastly, the author assumes,{no comma} the company’s profit will be increased by cutting the costs. The argument is unreasonable because there is no specific data about the relationship between profits and costs of the company. It is possible that the costs of the company are too small in compar[ison] to the profits. Therefore, cutting costs may not increase the profit of the company. The author should provide more data and statistic[s ] about the profits and costs of the company to make the comparison in order to strengthen the argument’s conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is not complete for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should provide more {“additional necessary information” seems better} necessary information and specific data and facts to demonstrate that the best way to improve the profit of the company is [by] remov[ing] the field offices and concentrat[ing] {or “is to remove … and concentrate”} the company’s activities on[at] one location.
[/b]