Status: Applying for R2
Affiliations: Rotary, Shakinah Crusaders(Community Service)
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Location: Hyderabad, India
Schools: Fuqua, Mcdonough, Darden, CMU
WE 1: 2.5
, given: 0
Can anyone please evaluate my argument-my first argument [#permalink]
03 May 2011, 04:03
over time , the costs of processing go down because as the 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 costds and thus maximize profits
The argument claims that over time as the organizations learn how to do things in a better way, costs of processing go down. It further states that the same principle applies to the processing of food and claims that the long experience of the Olympic foods would enable tham to minimize costs and maximize profits. Stated in this way the argument manupilates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Thus the argument is weak, unconvincing and poorly reasoned.
Firstly, the argument readily claims that over time as the organizations learn how to do things in a better way, costs of processing go down. This statement is a stretch and without proper supporting evidence it cannot be substantiated. There are many industries in different sectors ,inspite of having very long experience in their manufacturing process still operate at a substantial costs. This is because the cost of processing depends not only on the processing costs but also on other costs such as lobour costs, overhead costs which depend on the local and the global market. Clearly the statement that the processing costs of a company will be reduced with experience is not substantiated. It can therefore be strengthened by providing the relevant evidence stating on what factors the processing cost of food depends and how it can be reduced overtime.
Secondly, the example provided in the argument to support its claim is clearly flawed. The example states that in color film processing, 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. This illustration is rather a contrasting evidence to the arguments claims than a supporting one. According to the illustration, in 1970, color processing for a 3 by 5 inch print is 50 cents for 5 days . From this it can be inferred that , for one day it costed 10 cents. Thus it clearly shows that the illustration provided is flawed.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
Last bumped by Soozz on 03 May 2011, 04:03.