AWA Review needed
[#permalink]
04 Jul 2015, 07:51
Here is the argument in bold and my analysis follows it. Thanx alot.
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
AnALYSIS:
The argument states that with time an organisation learns how to do things more efficiently yielding more profits because of less cost. Hence, Olympus food, a 25 years old organisation, will experience minimum costs and therefore, maximum profits. Stated in this way the argument fails to address several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions and evidence do not substantiate the claims. Therefore, the argument is rather weak,unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that with time, cost of processing comes down as the organisations learn to things better which minimizes the cost. But the argument undermines the fact that with time every organisation has to face more competition as the processing costs reduce. For example, Nokia had once been the pioneer in mobile industry till been thrown by Apple, a newbie in mobile industry, eventually leading the company to shutdown.
Secondly, the argument compares food processing with color film processing and assumes that since the cost went down for color film industry,the same will happen with them. This claim has no basis at all. The claim also forgets that color film processing was aided massively by the evolving technology, hardware and industry growth. Therefore for this claim to be convincing, similar evidence should be given, like, for example, existence or formulation of new technology that will help reduce the cost of processing frozen food.
Finally and most importantly, the claim that with Olympus Foods completing 25 years, the profits will maximize, has no clear evidence at all. The argument does not supports this claim by providing any evidence like a plan or a course of action. It merely just claims does to happen because it has happen for other industries which are not event in the same area of business. This claim also does not state any factor by which the organisation is planning to cut costs or outlaying any new efficient methodology.
Because the argument leaves out several key factors and ceases to state an strong evidence, it is not persuasive. If it had included the above discussed points instead of solely relying on assumptions, the argument would have been more convincing and sound.