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

The argument states that the Apogee Company should shut down all its field offices and operate from a single location as it was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location. The argument has substantive flaws as it fails to indicate impact on revenue of the company, does not mention the costs of closing down the field offices, including immediate costs related to the shut down and long-term costs related to loss of customers or increased employee expenses, and does not address problems associated with employee relocation.
While profits are an important indicator of company performance, revenues are equally important especially for a company that has widened its operations. The argument is flawed as it fails to mention the impact of closing down operations on the revenues of the company. If the company closes down its field offices, it will not be able to access the customers in those locations as easily. It will also not be able to provide the immersive customer service that can be provided due to proximity to the customer. This will result in losing the customer accounts and decrease in revenues, and possibly profits. Second, the argument’s assumption that centralization will result in reduced costs is weak as it does not consider either the immediate cost of shutting down the operations or the long-term cost of losing customers. If the company wants to retain those customers it will have to invest in arrangements to ensure that its employees are readily available to the customers. This will result in increased investment, either in form of travel expenses, or digital infrastructure expenditure. The argument does not provide any information on how the company will tackle these concerns. Finally, the argument emphasizes that centralization will result in movement of all the employees back to a single location, resulting in better supervision. Some of the employees might not want to move their homes to a new location due to familial or other reasons. Also, the company will need to invest in new office space and other office equipment for all these employees, resulting in more costs to the company, which is counterintuitive to the argument’s original conclusion.
The argument leaves out certain issues in its evaluation of the decision for the Apogee Company to move back to a single location. If it had addressed these issues and provided clarifications on the potential concerns raised by the assumptions, the argument would have been sounder and more convincing.