“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations l

Below are the questions I responded to and my answer. Any help would be muchly appreciated, this is my first shot at the AWAs and my GMAT is tomorrow!!!

AWA Argument

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 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.

Olympic Foods has stated that, ‘Over time, costs of processing go down as as organisations learn how to do things better’, to demonstrate that Olympic Food’s long experience will result in minimized costs and maximized profits for the company. This argument is flawed for three key reasons. The parallel example used is for a technological process which is distinguished from a food process. The logical end is profit maximisation which does not consider other factors which impact profits, such as competition. Finally, while the initial premise is correct in regards to continuous process improvement, there is no justification as to how this is manifested in the Olympic Foods factory.

Firstly, the technological process discuss has some important differences to the processing of food. The argument uses the reduction in film processing times and price over a 14 year period, from 170 to 1984, to indicate that significant savings in costs of processing can be made over long periods. However, cameras were a relatively niche and expensive technology in 1970, and the popularity of cameras and film increased significantly in the period referred to, which brought with it a large increase in demand for film processing. Hence, the cost reduction implied by the price decrease may be partly due to scale, and partly due to production efficiencies. The Olympic Foods example does not mention any scale advantages – also, it is unlikely that the demand for food has increased as exponentially as the demand for film.

Secondly, Input prices are also a factor in evaluating the relevance of the film processing parallel. The price of the paper for printing photos also dropped substantially over the period, due to massive increases in demand and efficiencies in the process for manufacturing the photo paper. Conversely, the price of food has been steadily increasing over the last 50 years. The factors make the film processing example a poor analogy to argue that the cost of producing food is lower.

Thirdly, the final stage of the argument in the Olympic Foods annual report implies that cost minimization is the key factor in maximization of profits. Some other key items that affect profits have been excluded, such as levels of competition, price of available substitutes and consumer demand.

In conclusion, while Olympic Foods may have reduced its food processing costs over the last 25 years, the statements in the annual report extract do not substantiate this. The example given regarding film processing is poorly linked to the Olympic Foods business and no relevant example from the business itself is included – which would improve the argument substantially. A full description of the relevant market conditions, and the relative performance Olympic Foods against competitors would prove more substantive evidence to argue that Olympic Foods has improved processing costs. Based on this argument, it is unlikely that stockholders will be convinced that Olympic Foods’ long history will have a direct impact on its overall performance.

AWA - Issue

“In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.”
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs?
Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

Governments or other groups should only be able to censor television or radio to a limited extent. Free speech must be protected by a nation’s media outlets, but offensive language and behaviour can have a negative effect on the behaviour of the population, or some segments of the population, if no censoring occurs. The people watching television cannot always be trusted to make the best decisions on what they should watch. Television and radio are often examples to the rest of the population and maintaining a level of decency and some moral standards in this programming will benefit the population as a whole.

Firstly, society is highly influenced by what is on TV and radio. There have been several examples of ‘copycat’ style offences, where the initial event is publicised or first shown on the TV or heard on the radio. The proliferation of media in mainsteam society provides easy access for anyone to these entertainment devices. Overly violent movies can provide the necessary impetus for a person to commit a crime, and the likelihood of the event being televised makes committing a crime even more appealing for some people. There have been instances where violent criminals have cited television programs or movies as a factor in their criminal actions.

Other members of society are equally affected by indiscriminate access to violence and offensive behaviour. Children has limited ability to discern right from wrong, and during their formative years appropriate behaviour must be encouraged to create good habits and strong morals in children. Seeing violent police shows, swearing and fighting on television may give the impression that this behaviour is acceptable in society. This could be prevented with some appropriate censorship based on the hours that some television shows are programmed, as is the case in Australia, where violent movies are only allowed on television late at night. It could be argued that parents should have the responsibility for monitoring their children’s television viewing habits, but occasionally parents are not available to play this role.

Finally, television and radio have an important role in promoting the ideals of a society. Having programming with strong values and morally upstanding characters can help promote the overall behaviour of a society. Mormons, for example, do not have televisions in their society because they are trying to promote a certain standard of behaviour that is not supported by modern television programming. Radio shock jocks, like John Laws in Australia, have the impact of lowering the general standards of the population in terms of their boundaries for disgusting and obscene behaviour, by promoting this behaviour on the radio. This effectively desensitizes the public to this obscene behaviour and makes it more acceptable and less shocking in everyday life. If Governments could censor this type of radio show, the public would be less likely to view obscene behaviour as an acceptable standard.

There is definitely such thing as going too far, when free speech is limited. The ideal framework for censorship is one that is voted for an approved by the general population, which takes into account some different levels of censorship, and generally promotes free speech where it is not obscene or offensive. Australia has a very effective ‘Code of Practice’ model that requires licensing for radio shows and hands out fines to offending shows that breach the Code of Practice. Television shows are also assessed on this framework and required to maintain standards, with more relaxed standards at different times of the day – such as late at night, when children are unlikely to be watching television. Appropriately applied, censorship of television and radio programs is favourable and appropriate, and can benefit the community as a whole.