[求助]再发AA002 第一次发连版规都没看，真对不起。

The argument above concludes that the centralization of Apogee Company would improve profit by cutting costs and improving supervision of the staffs. According to the fact that the company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location, the argument seems convincing and reasonable. However, it is unsafe to the draw the conclusion by the fact alone and the conclusion has some logical false.

In the second place, even the improved profitability of the company was only resulted from the centralization, it may not convincible that the company’s past achievement can sufficiently assure its present or future success by carrying out the same strategy. Because the company might use to be a small one whose throughput and capability were limited and the scales of the firm required it to have all its operations in one location, however, time is changing and the company needed to expand its production and employ more employees, so centralization may not fit the increased production and the increased customers. Thus the plan to close down its field offices and conduct all its operation nowadays from a single location may not bring more profits even limit the ability of the company to gain profits.

In the first place, the assumption on which the conclusion is based that the improved profitability was only attributed to the fact that the company centralized its production is very doubtable. On one hand, the centralization may be not the only reason leading to the increased profits and the argument fails to provide possible reasons other than centralization. For instance, it is entirely possible that the management of the company became more effective and efficient, the staffs who were stimulated by a new regulation work more hard to improve their performance and create more value for the firm, and the competitors had some trouble to compete with the company as they did before. All these factors contributed to the profitability of the company. On the other hand, the centralization may have the opposite influence of the achievement of the profit. As the globalization developed, the company should have several sites in diverse areas and expand its occupation of the market. So if the company has all its production in one place, it may lose many precious opportunities to gain collaboration and obtain profits. Thus company would have become more profitable if it had not located its field offices in one place.

In conclusion, the argument doesn’t clarify that the profits were gained only by the centralization and omits other factors affecting the profits. Besides, the argument fails to provide adequate evidence to support that the company can be profitable by centralizing the production as it did some years ago when there might be a different condition in the society and the company might look different from what it is today. Admitted the conclusion and the evidence have some inner relations and the conclusion will be better drawn if the argument can supply some convincing clues to support it.

我对这篇argument谬误的理解是  昨日不再，虚假因果。各位大侠们还有什么好的建议吗？