24. 说一个firm 如果增加information technology 的投入的话 公司就会profitable
内容来源于一家广告公司的高科技部门：有结论说员工的效率越高，公司的profit就越高。又有结论说对经常使用电脑的部门进行高科技方面的投资，这些部门的员工的工作效率就越高。于是该部门说他们计划投资目前available的最尖端的科技，这样公司的profit per dollar就会随着员工效率(貌似是这个词)而升高。
The more efficient a firm's employees are, the more profitable that firm will be. Improvements in a firm's information technology hardware and software are a proven way to increase the efficiency of employees who do the majority of their work on computers. Therefore, if our firm invests in the most powerful and advanced information technology available, employee productivity will be maximized. This strategy ensures that every dollar spent on enhanced information technology will help to increase our firm's profit margins.
25. 就是Apogee Company那个
2. 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 (n. 外地办事处) 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
In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.
First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.
Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帐本底线) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first.
In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that Apogee should close field offices and centralize, this author must provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis of available alternatives and rule out factors other than decentralization that might be affecting current profits negatively.
1. causal oversimplification: It is imprudent to conclude that the establishment of the field offices is the only reason explaining the decline of the profit.
2. all things are equal: The success of the centralization of the past does not guarantee the applicability in the future.
3. either-or-or choice: The author assumes that the centralization and the establishment of field offices are mutually exclusive alternatives, there is no middle ground between they two. In fact, we can have the field offices under centralized control.