The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen
"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 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....Explanation
The above argument that over time organizations become more efficient and hence, the cost of processing goes down is flawed because the author has not provided enough evidence in support to the fact that the reason that the price of color film processing fell down was because of the efficiency of the organization.
The author explicitly states that in color film processing the cost was reduced in a duration of approximately 15 years but he/she fails to realize the reason behind the cost reduction, for example, the cost might have been lowered because of the arrival of a new technology and not the efficiency of the organisation or because of increasing competition in the market. The author no where states the reason behind the reduction of the cost. Moreever, the example provided for the conclusion is too generic and does not focus on a particular organiztion. He/she talks about color film processing which represents a whole industry and not any particular organization.
Also, the author here is comparing two completely different industry here. The example provided by author to conclude his/her reasoning, is about color film processing industry where as the stated principle are applied to Olympic foods which is into frozen food processing. The two are very different industry which may cater to very different customers, use different technology, require different expertise. To draw the conclusion about efficiency of organization of these two different categories becomes all the more difficult without any evidence.
The above argument would be more clear if the author could talk more about the efficiency of the organization in color film processing for example - how the cost was reduced by expediting the process with help of skilled employees, expediting the process of training of new employees or avoiding some common mistakes. Also, author could show more relation between the two industries for example - how the two industry use the same technology? , have some common ground to relate to each other. However, in the current form the argument is flawed.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
"When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today.
Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single
location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better
supervision of all employees."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.Explanation
The above argument that cutting costs by closing all field offices and conducting operations from a single location will improve profitability is flawed because the author fails to explain the reason behind the decline in profitability of the Apogee company. It might be the case that the decline is because of some external factor e.g. recession. In such case closing down the field offices will not make any contribution towards profit. Argument is very unclear about the decline in profits and it is merely comparing profits of a company in two different time periods.
According to the author, the said company was more profitable when it operated from a single location than in its current form, where it has more than one office in different location. However, it might have happened that the field offices are doing good and are , indeed, earning greater revenue but the profits are not realized because the cost for building these offices was high. Maybe in coming years these costs will be recovered and the company will see higher profits than before. Also, it might be the case that the company previously had more local business and has expanded now to serve more customers and in coming time it might get more business from its field offices after establishing a reputation in the new markets.
Also, the authore here, has not stated by what amount the profit has declined ? It maybe the case that the decline in the profit is neglieable. In such case, closing down the field offices may mean losing a lot of customers which were acquired after the opening of new field offices, and in turn losing a lot of revenue. Morever, author fails to explain how the centralizaiton will work in case all the field offices are closed. In fact, we don't even know if it possible to centralize all the work. The process of intergrating the field offices with the main office might be a more profitable or efficient idea to centralize than by closing the field offices.
The above argument could be soldified by providing more proof by stating the reason behind the decline in profits for example - due to the field offices the company employees are finiding it hard to integrate among themselves or the company serves more to local customers and hence has no need of field offices. However, the conclusion to close down the field offices with stating the reason behind the decline in proifit is not justified
Please be as forthright as possible
DOUBT - Currently I am practicing AWA from OG 13
. Are the topics at start are easier than those which appear later? Basically are they arranged as per difficulty level because I'm going by the order and not picking any topic at random