Please rate my AWA
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2014, 18:11
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 howto 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 andthus maximize profits."
Discuss howwell reasoned you find this argument. In yourdiscussion 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 andwhat 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.
Here is my response
The annual report of Olympic Foods concludes that their 25 yrs of experience enables them to minimize costs and maximizes profits. They are expecting cost of processing to go down which will eventually lower production cost. While report has some merit, it is flawed in following aspects.
First, author has provided an example of color film processing in support. But this analogy is completely wrong as food processing company and color film processing company are entirely different entities. Both operate on different parameters. So the same downward cost price trend that happened in color processing industry is not necessarily happen in food processing industry and thus makes the argument weak. Accordingly, author should have provided similar industry analogy to strengthen his argument.
Second, the author easily assumes that production cost will decline over the time. Author fails to consider several other factors such as what if raw material price rises? What if some unexpected situation arises such as labour strike or machinery failure? This will definitely hamper production cost.If report has given some consideration to these points then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, author seems to take for granted that profit will increase with declination in production cost. But author is forgetting that profit is entirely dependent on selling price. How can author assumes that selling price will remain constant or will not increase over the time? What if sale decreases? Or some rival company forces them to reduce prices? If that is the case then profit will not increase. Hence, argument appears weak.
In conclusion, since the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. Not only does the argument assume decline in production cost will happen, but it also fails to account for possible causes in profit declination. If author includes the items discussed above instead of wrong analogy, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.