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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that if the Apogee Company close its field offices and transfer all processes of production in one place, it will be more profitable as it was in previous time because the firm can cut costs and better supervise it employees. This conclusion, based solely on one piece of evidence, is doubtful as it does not provide any clear information. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that, doing the same things as in prior time, the Apogee Company will have the identical result. It is a mistake because everything always changes and the firm can not take the lead position if it does not provide any suggestions for their customers. For instance, the BlackBerry is a good example of this logical mistake which led the company to falling.
Second, the argument makes an assumption that if a company has all process of production in one place, it will be more successful and profitable than one which has no concentration of manufacture at a single location. Unfortunately, there are a lot of evidences that companies having a lot of stage of production in different places have more profit than local players and the Apple Inc. is the best example of such company.
Thirdly, there is no any statistic information or calculations which can be useful in order to make this argument more logical and convincing. Why is the company sure that the working in one place it will cut down costs? How the Apogee Company is going to maintain better supervision of all employees? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to provide more evidence. Supporting examples would further substantiate the author's view. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 19, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...e of such company. Thirdly, there is no any statistic information or calculatio...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, for instance, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1712.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 335.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11044776119 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94624597369 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525373134328 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.4457245755 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.705882353 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7058823529 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11764705882 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240879424396 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693195753902 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767785672159 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134299683462 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0707171683178 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.