- UID
- 612649
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-3-6
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
AA002
In this argument the author endorsed that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location, to justify his claim , the author points the conclusion is based on the fact that it will more profitable than today when the Apogee company had all its operations in on location. Additionally, the author also think centralization would improve profitability by cutting coasts and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. While this argument is some questionably, appears to be somewhat convincing. It suffer form several reasons.
First, the author assumed that centralization would improve profitability by cutting coasts and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. This assumption is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. The author didn’t mention other reason could caused increases cost because
close down its field offices. For instance, company represent often travel to do business by field offices, it can save lot of money and save a lot of time, like the word say time is money. field offices also can create profitability . The conclusion that centralization is completely unwarranted.
secondly, the author unfairly assumes that profitability was determined solely by close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. While centralization is important element caused profitability, , it is hardly the only or even necessarily required element. This assumption overlooks other crucial criteria caused profitability. Such as management or quality of employees, poor employees use monitoring also work, effective advertising, quality of product, company strategy is also important effect profitability, Without accounting for these potential factors, the author concludes too hastily that centralization is the best way to attain future target.
Third, even centralization is a seemingly important factor determining increase profitability, but the author commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. The fact that happened past is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that the future use this way would efficiently work, such as economics environment will be change ,or centralization not work in the future, economic policy change, or higher efficient management to monitoring all employees instead of centralization, the author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. Thus it is impossible to conclude that it was more profitable than it is today.
In outline, this argument is not convictive forceful forcible suasive as it stands. This argument is hasty for the author to conclude that company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location just because centralization would improve profitability and monitoring employees, to urge along the argument logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that centralization is only way to efficient and make profitability, get rid of other factor descending centralization important rate . Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-9-30 23:12:12
收藏
收藏
楼主
真是可以用绞尽脑汁啊！
