Hello. I have just started prepping for the GMAT, and I have taken the diagnostic test to gauge where I stand right now. I have also written an essay for one of the AWA arguments presented in the OG. I timed my writing exactly to the requirements of the GMAT, and I do notice that I need to learn to manage my time better. I am now looking for someone to grade this essay, and also to provide any pointers if it's not too much trouble. Any help would be appreciated!

The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
"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 1970to 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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence inthe argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might'weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

My essay
The premises used by the argument in order to assert the maximization of profits is primarily flawed because it makes certain omissions which are otherwise vital to the context. For example, the argument uses a singular variable, which is production cost, to determine the effect on overall profits, across two different industries.

First, the argument plays upon a general human preconception and assumes that things only get better with time, and that production costs are a function of efficiency alone, which is bound to get better with time. We know that this, in fact, is not necessarily true. The production costs would depend on a variety of factors, of which efficiency is only one. Other factors might include the prices of raw materials used, labor legislations, health and safety regulations and so on. Even though the factors might have weighed positively on the film processing industry, the same might not be true for the food industry, where health and safety regulations carry much more bearing.

Secondly, the argument assumes that decreasing costs translate into higher profits for organizations. Again, this is not necessarily true. Lifestyle choices would also influence the cost vs. profit graph. An increase in consumption of processed foods might translate into higher demand, prompting stiffer competition. Or a decline in the consumption of processed foods would translate into lower sales numbers. Hence, either a stiff competition or a decline in demand might very well outweigh the impact of decreasing production costs.

Addressing the above issues could have strengthened the argument. It would strengthen the argument if we the author were to evaluate factors such as Olympic Foods’ placement in the market, the trends in demand as well as market share, any marketing programs that are likely to influence sales, etc.

Thanks for the valuable pointers, Ron. Much appreciated :D