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. The

The argument states that If Apogee Company will operate from one location then it’ll be profitable as centralization will lead to cost cutting and better supervision of employees. But this conclusion is based on faulty reasoning and invalid assumptions which do not lend sufficient support to the author’s thesis.

Firstly, it assumes that as Apogee was once profitable when it worked from one location so this time also when it’ll operate from one location results will be same but it don’t take other factor into the consideration For e.g. market trends and less competition in the market .It might be possible that due to market trends, company was profitable at that time and now market trend might have changed and there are more competitors .So without considering these factors we can’t say whether it’ll be profitable or not only on the basis of location.

Additionally, one of the greatest flaw in the argument is that it relies upon the assumption that Supervision of employees will be better if company will operate from one location but it don’t consider may factors like supervisor at the time when company was profitable as that also effects performance of employees and whether current employees are ready to relocate to new location or not as losing employees will effect company.

So as this argument leaves out several important key issues it is not sound or persuasive. This argument would have been strong and made sense if it had considered above mentioned factors.