AWA 2
April 2, 2008
Analysis of argument Questions 2) 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 Companyshould close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability bycutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The proposal talks about closing the field operations to increase profitability. This does not talk about the need which drove this expansion of the company. It also does not elaborate if the company is looking for profitability or profit in its business. In the light of the above points the argument is slightly weak.
The field operations are definitely little difficult to maintain than centralized operations. And also it can drill down to requirement of some extra stuff. Definitely cutting those wings would immediately reduce the cost of operations. But we should also consider whether there was a requirement which drove the company to go for the distributed model of operation; in that case closing the field operation may harm the company’s long term growth.
The fact is also not clear if Apogee is looking for profitability or the total profit as a whole. The profitability could be low but the profit could be higher than earlier one. If the argument would have talk about the increase of profitability without compromising the profit than it would be more compelling.
It is the goal of almost all companies to increase the profit. Going global is a strategic step, which requires field operation and expansion. Also in the mean time profitability is something which company could consider in the long run. If the argument would have mentioned that the total profit has gone down because of the field operations and also the centralized operation could suffice the need of the company, than the argument would be much clear and strong in its logic.
@Petra:: you ve to write an essay
This can be meager co-incidence because:
1) Time is different, so is the market. Can’t assume that the market scenario was same.
2) We also donot know that, what company policies were at that instant. The policies may have been different.
3) The loss may have been resulted because of relocation expenses, which can again result if they shift from different places to one
The points R, T, and U lie on a circle that has radius 4. If the length of arc RTU is 34π, what is the length of line segment RU?
A. 34
B. 38
C. 3
D. 4
E. 6
answer? please explain