Argument about Apogee company! Plz evaluate!

[g.tatiana]

:). The following appeared in a memorandum issued from the business department of the Apogee Company.

“When 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 operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”

Discuss how well reasoned 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 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 author concludes that in order to conduct successful business the Apogee Company should close down its branch offices, and operate from a single location. The author’s line of reasoning is based on the information that the company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location than today. The speaker assumes that centralization would help cut costs, maintain better supervision of all employees, and thus maximize profits. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

First of all the author cites an example from the past experience of the company, but does not provide sufficient evidence to support his position. It is possible, that there were other reasons for higher profits, such as less competition or higher demand for company’s products or services. Also, the company management at one time in the past decided to switch from centralized to decentralized operations for particular sound reasons. Hence, decentralization of the offices might not be the obvious and immediate cause of lower profits.

Secondly, author makes a questionable assumption that switching back to a centralized way of business organization guarantees that the Apogee Company will be able to cut costs and more effectively supervise employees, thereby improving profitability. However, the author fails to consider that smaller offices under decentralized systems could be much easier to maintain and control, than one big office in one location. Plus, there is no evidence cited to oppose the fact that some costs might increase, for example, transportation costs may go up, if the company will have only one office, but will have to deliver its products or services to other locations. Hence, the conclusion that company will increase its profits is unsupported.

In order to make this argument persuasive, the author should provide solid statistical or financial evidence how centralized organization will benefit the company. Also it would be helpful to cite definite facts that company’s profits went down after it opened many field offices.

In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing in that it lacks supportive data, and is based on the example from the past, which has no significant relevance to the present situation of the company. On the whole, the argument provides no evidence to convince reader that the Apogee Company should close its field offices and return to a centralized location.