AWA Feedback
[#permalink]
10 Apr 2014, 23:22
Hi all,
Looking for some feedback on this AWA practice essay. Please be as critical as possible. Thank you!
The prompt is the 1st one in OG13 and reads as follows:
"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 use to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
My response:
The author argues that processing costs decrease over time because the organization learns how to process the item more efficiently. The author cites an example from the color film processing industry, and then argues that this example holds true for the food processing as well. Therefore, the author concludes, that because Olympic Foods is 25 years old, its processing costs will decrease and, in turn, its profits will increase. Unfortunately, the author makes several assumptions that prevent the argument from being persuasive.
Firstly, the author assumes that processing costs decreasing over time is a fundamental rule that always holds true. In other words, the author states this premise as a fact and backs it up with only one potential example in the color film industry. Moreover, the author fails to explain how the color film industry example supports the idea that processing costs decrease over time because the processor learns how to be more efficient. The color film industry processing costs could have decreased for a number of reasons, not necessarily because of increased knowledge over time. The author should clarify the connection between the decreased processing costs in the color film industry and the idea of learning how to do things better over time. For example, the author, with some sound research, could demonstrate the change in processing techniques over that time period and how those changes specifically contributed to the decreased costs. Additionally, even if the color film industry is a sound example, it is only one piece of data. Thus, the author would be better served with a larger sample size to support such an assertion. For example, the author could research several industries and demonstrate how in each industry processing techniques changed over time, and those particular changes helped bring down processing costs.
Secondly, even if the author’s assertion applies in the color film industry, the author assumes that it automatically applies to the food industry as well. In other words, the author assumes what applies to the color film world applies to the food world as well without explaining why or how. The author’s argument would be more sound if the author could demonstrate why what occurred in the color film industry is representative of other industries and in particular the food industry. The author could gather some data that compares the similarities in processing techniques, and then show how those techniques have changed consistently over time for both industries.
Thirdly, the author assumes that this time-cost relationship will apply to Olympic Foods after its 25th birthday without explaining why. In other words, the author uses an arbitrary cut off date of 25 years to argue that this coming year all of a sudden processing costs will decrease. It’s not clear why the 25th year is of any significance – maybe it takes 10 years to decrease costs, or 30 years, or 23. Maybe the author believes that processing costs decrease little by little each year but that is not clear from the report. Thus, the author should clarify why this upcoming year is bound to decrease processing costs.
Lastly, even if processing costs were to decrease, the author assumes that such a decrease in and of itself would lead to higher profits. However, the profit equation is two sided. In other words, profits depend on both cost and revenue. Thus, lower costs alone would not necessarily boost profits – revenues would have to stay the same or also increase for profits to rise.
In conclusion, without more data and clarification between the relationships the author asserts in the report, the argument is not persuasive.