25 AWAs in 25 weeks (please rate me!)

Week 1 - Olympic Foods

Prompt:

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 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. 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 in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might you can also discuss what sort of evidence would encourage 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.

Essay:

The argument presented in the Olympic Foods annual report is faulty, due to the unsubstantiated claims made about the ability to achieve increasing cost efficiencies over time. To improve the argument that Olympic Foods will be able to minimize costs and maximize profits through this method, the author should elucidate how their case example is relevant to the food processing industry and provide further context on whether cost efficiencies will lead to total cost reduction and be accompanied by stable or increasing revenue.

The argument author postulates that Olympic Foods is likely to see increasing cost efficiency over time by citing an example from color film processing. However, this example has several flaws that call into question its relevancy. First, the author does not describe any, if all, similarities between food and film processing, which leads the reader to question whether similar efficiency gains can be achieved by Olympic Foods. If, for example, most of these gains in film processing were achieved by process streamlining and reduction of overhead costs per print, then perhaps the food industry could also learn from and apply these improvements. Second, the author does not explain the applicability of cost efficiency gains from the 1980s to today. If these improvements were brought about by computerization of aforementioned overhead costs, then arguably Olympic Foods would have also done so at the time and similar leaps in efficiency would not be relevant today. Lastly, the example itself does not clearly demonstrate efficiency gains, as 50 cents per 5 days in 1970 results in an average cost of 10 cents per day, lower than the achieved 20 cents per day in 1984. If the author can explain the breakdown of these costs and how this example can translate to food processing, it would be a more compelling example.

Furthermore, the argument author does not flush out details regarding other factors that could influence Olympic Foods’ profits. For example, even if we accept that Olympic Foods can and will achieve increasing cost efficiencies, we still do not know whether this will result in decreasing total costs. Olympic Foods could potentially be expanding a product line or launching in new geographies, requiring more manufactured product. Even if the cost per unit is reduced, if they end up producing more total units, then bottom line costs could actually increase. Additionally, we do not know whether Olympic Foods will be able to continue to price their food products at the same level or if demand for their food products will remain the same. There is the possibility that the generated revenue per unit could be lower today, at a level beyond what potential cost efficiencies could capture in overall profit. Thus, the author would need to explain how cost efficiencies fit into Olympic Foods’ overall income outlook, including total manufacturing plans and sales.

In order for the author to make a compelling argument for Olympic Foods’ ability to lower costs and maximize profits through increasing cost efficiencies, they would need to make additions to their original statement, specifically to address the relevancy of their case example and how these cost efficiencies fit with the rest of the company’s economic status.


Afterthoughts:

I felt extremely rushed. First 5 minutes were allocated to prepping, wrote down 6 potential flaws to address, ended up grouping some of them down to 4, but then realized it was really addressing 2 areas: the example and the claim about profits. 23 minutes were straight writing, ending up with only 2 minutes to proofread...I felt I rambled a bit and didnt get a chance to make my body paragraphs concise and snappy. Definitely was worried about using the same phrasing over and over. SO had an opinion about the "10 cents per day" critique and thought I should have left that out. Overall feeling okay for first attempt, need to have more vocab variety in back pocket.