跪求前辈改作文!!!

492095952

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 maintain better supervision of all employees.

The argument assumes that closing the divisions located in different regions might increase its profits and strengthen the supervision to staff. While, this is not necessary the case, since the editor of argument has not taken some indispensible factors into account, which makes the content not persuasive and cogent. For instance, the condition of local market might be changed in past years, simultaneously, it is entirely possible that the extension of Apogee Company is happened for only few years, during which the input outweighs the output legitimately.

First, the argument has assumed that the situation of market was not changed since the extension of Apogee Company. Actually, such supposes are only made unconsciously or subconsciously, which cannot be supported by any evidence. From another perspective, the premise listed in the argument to infer the conclusion is weak and unconvincing, therefore, it is rather superficial to simply say that cutting the divisions of other fields will exert positive effects on the profit of Apogee Company. As an old saying goes: One example cannot establish a general conclusion. Inference constructed by one-sided evaluations cannot be used as the reference of decision.

Second, the specific situation of the operations in outland fields are not described clear and detailed in argument. As the possible situations narrated in content before, this year might be the initial period of extensions, during which the investing, in most cases, would outweigh the revenue. Consequently, the increase of profit in subsequent years can be expected since outland divisions such as new marketing net, logistics department and management are completed gradually. Additionally, the cost of material might decrease, because the new demand of material has been created by field divisions and most managers, if not all, agree that the common, scale economics will plunge the average cost without doubt.

Third, the argument only care about the short term balance sheet rather than the financial conditions in long period. All too we observed that some decisions seem like frenzy at first have been substantiated as the important step to promote the development of institution in hindsight. Consequently, the extension of Apogee Company in outland might exert positive effects on the long term profit, which is ignored in the report spontaneously. Despite the fact that the editor of report is not a prophet, he/she should pay attention to the long term scheme of company.

To sum up, the report demonstrated in question is not persuasive and considerate, since it has not investigated the latest local marketing situation, explained the specific condition of field offices and lacked the prediction of future. Clearly, the report with such leaks will not be referred by board of directors and decision-making, and if the report can point out the foundations it depends on, contain the specific condition of outland branches and make some predictions about future operations rather than simply compare the financial situations in 2 periods, it will be convincing and potent to readers.