Management of companies has always been a dissension throughout the world of business. Different organizations have varying opinions regarding the issue and of course based on solid reasons. While some believe that it is efficient to have a centralized organizational structure whereas others deduce that decentralization is the solution. In the preceding statement, the author claims that “closing down field offices and conducting all the operations from a single location would improve profitability”, although this might not be entirely false but the author has presented a rather poorly reasoned argument, based on groundless justifications and questionable assumptions, therefore this argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The principle issue with this argument is that there is absolutely no evidence to buttress the claim regarding the profitability. “When the company was operating from one location it was more profitable than it is today”, here the author made a bold claim favoring the centralized structure but in absence of any supporting evidence which appears to be more of a wild guess. There are countless other factors which constitute to the profitability of a company rather than just its organizational structure which the author fails to consider here. Additionally the author claims that when Apogee Company will revert back to its previous structure which is a centralized system, it will automatically start yielding profits by just cutting up costs and practicing enhanced employee supervision. Even if this is the case, the statement lacks any sort of legitimate evidence to strengthen the claim therefore rendering it objectionable.
Furthermore, the author has made several assumptions which remain controversial. The primary assumption being that in the past, the company was more profitable due to centralization which remains unproven; there could be numerous other reasons apart from merely having a centralized structure. In addition to this, it is also assumed that the company’s current organizational structure is the leading cause of its feeble profitability which also appears to be absurd without any competent reasoning. There can be multiple other bases for the current issue of profitability rather than just the company’s decentralized structure. Another baseless assumption made here is that changing the company’s structure back to a centralized one would lead to reduced costs and better employee supervision but on what grounds? There is no adequate rationale provided for the claim to be justified. The author has weakened his argument by making unreasonable assumptions and failing to provide decent explanation of a relation between company’s profitability and company’s organizational structure.
While the author’s argument may carry some weight in his assumptions and claims due to which it cannot be labeled as entirely incorrect. The statement would have carried more convincing prowess if the claims had sufficient supporting evidence such as company’s previous financial records proving the provided claims, future projections of the company’s profits or a cost-benefit analysis of the both centralized and decentralized organizational structures. Likewise, the assumptions in the statement would have been considered acceptable if they were proved either by detailed explication or by logical analysis. Although there are several flaws with author’s reasoning at present but with adequate evidential information and sufficient clarifications, this statement could be improved significantly.
In a coda, the author’s absurd argument stands on baseless premises and dubious assumptions that render his conclusion invalid and without merit. In order to make the argument more acceptable and more convincing the author should reevaluate his assumptions, restructure the whole argument, eliminate the loopholes, properly explicate his assumptions and provide sufficient evidential support. Without the mentioned alterations, the poorly reasoned argument will most likely convince very few, if any, people.