GMAT Tomorrow - Please grade my AWA. Please do.

I have posted my AWAs on this forum twice before this but I have not received a single response. My GMAT is tomorrow. I beg you to take out 5 minutes of your time to grade this last AWA of mine before the actual one. It will be really appreciated. If you later want me to grade yours, I will do so. Thanks you!

Question:

“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.

Answer:
The argument states that Olympic Foods will be able to minimise costs and hence maximize profits. This is based on the premise that the costs of processing go down because organizations learn how to do things better. The author’s claim is not backed by strong evidence and hence is weak and unsubstantiated. There are a lot of factors that have not been taken into account that can change the argument’s strength.

First, the argument suggests that minimizing costs is equal to maximising profits. This causal relation claim may not hold true for a lot of cases. In most industries, due to innovations from time to time, the costs of production go down, but still, the profit levels do not share an inverse relationship with the costs because of intense competition in the market. Though it is true that there are one-off incidents in the history of the industrial revolution when production costs went down greatly and hence helped in lowering of prices like when Ford discovered the assembly line, but generalising such instances is an unjustified stretch. We need to actually have facts and figures of Olympic Foods and the industry it is associated with, to make a sound conclusion.

Second, the statement itself that learning to do things better helps organizations to reduce the costs of production is flawed. More often than not, due to constant increasing costs of raw material, organizations have to act smart and do things better to keep the production costs at the same level. So even though organizations innovate and become better at what they do, they are just about able to stick to its initial production costs figures. Sometimes, the average wages increase with time and to stay afloat, companies need to trim their workforce. Hence, it is important to know here again whether such increases in wages of its employees or the costs of raw materials are taking place. Without these values, going ahead and stating that better efficiency is equivalent to lower costs of production is wrong.

Last, it is mentioned that what applies to the colour film processing, the same applies for the food processing industry. This is not always true. The color processing industry differs from the latter in a lot of ways, starting from the other industries they depend on for their raw materials, the people they serve and the needs that they fulfil. It might be true that the color film industry depended on another industry for its raw materials and the price of this raw material fell drastically. Hence the industry was able to reduce its price substantially. The same might not be true for the food processing industry. Infact, the prices of raw materials for this industry might be ever increasing. Such a direct comparison is hence flawed.

So, to make a knowledgeable conclusion, it is important for us to dig into the minute details and present all information needed to frame a better and sound argument. Till that time though, we are just left with an argument which is made of ill-defined reasons and is based on weak premises.