“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.”
The author states that the Apogee Company should be run out of one location. The evidence for this is that when the Apogee company was run out of one location in the past, it was more profitable than it is currently. Although the Apogee company may be more profitable if it is run out of one central location, the argument as presented is unconvincing.
First of all, there is no evidence demonstrating the profitability of the field offices. Although the Apogee company is less profitable than it has been, some of the field offices could in fact be profitable. Furthermore, it’s not stated which office the Apogee company will run out of. The Apogee company could have a few unprofitable field offices. In which case, closing or relocating the least profitable offices would dramatically increase the company’s profitablility.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the market for the Apogee Company's goods and services is worse than it was in the past. There's not even any evidence of what the Apogee Company does! If markets for Apogee's goods and services exist in multiple locations, having one office hardly makes sense. Multiple offices should be opened to increase profit.
The author could do a couple of things to make this argument stronger. For example, there is no evidence that shows the profitability of all the field offices is declining. There is also no evidence that shows the marketability of the field offices. These two factors would indicate that not only are the field offices not profitable, but there is no market for the Apogee company’s goods as well.
Without hard evidence...