Some of my writing-looking for critism-thank you

gina2012

AA

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 maintain better supervision of all employees.”



The argument reaches the conclusion that the apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location to improve profitability based on the company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First of all, the company did not fully assess all aspects of current situation of low in profits and derive the conclusion from only one single fact. There are a number of elements could cause a company’s falling in profit: reduced selling volume, the increasing cost of the raw material, and macroeconomic environment as well as the increasing cost in operation. There is no solid evidencefield offices and umbrella-like operation is, if not the only, one of the reasons to impact on the company profits. It is obvious that under current economic environment that most companies are less profitable comparing to they were before.

Secondly, the company did not research into the results of the action of closing down the field offices. We do not know how the field offices support the current sale or after sale services. It could be a key advantageous feature to the company. The Company needs to weigh the positive effects against the negative effects to determine whether or not to take certain actions. The consequence may be irreversible and financially significant. Furthermore, Field offices and multi-location operations can even be a money-saving strategy as the operation costs in the other locations are lower than the centre location.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification for the conclusion. The solution to increasing the profits is rather light and thin due to lack of strong evidence and logical assessing the case in a full picture. It is not seen as direct relation between high profits and single location operation.

gina2012

Modified

The argument reaches the conclusion that the apogee company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location to improve profitability based on the company was more profitable when it had all operations in one location. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First of all, the company did not fully assess all aspects of current situation in low profitability and derive the conclusion from only one single element. There are a number of elements could cause a company’s falling in profit: reduced sale volume,  the increasing costs of the raw materials, macroeconomic environment and the increasing costs in operation. There is no solid evidence  that field offices and umbrella-like operation are among  the reasons to give negative  impacts on the company’s profits.  It is obviously well known  that current economic environment led to the low profits in most companies. All the other likely causes were not considered and evaluated to reach the conclusion.

Secondly, the company did not research into the possible consequence of closing down the field offices. We do not know how the field offices support the current sales and after sale services. It could be a key advantageous feature  to the company. The Company needs to weigh the positive effects against the negative effects to determine whether or not to take certain actions. Shutting down the field offices can cause irreversible damage on the sales although, it may temporarily reduce the operation costs.

Furthermore, field offices and multi-location operations can even be a money-saving  strategy as the operation costs in the other locations could be higher or lower than the centre location. Some companies use field offices and multi-location operation approach to sort out logistic issues and to reduce the cost generated by transportation when the operation site is far away from the client’s site.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification for the conclusion. The solution to increasing the profits is rather light and thin due to lack of strong evidence and logical reasoning. It is not seen that there is a direct relation between high profits and single location operation.