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

Hi to all GMAT comunity!

I'm sharing my first AWA practice essay. Any feedback is welcome!

Thanks in advance

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 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.”

Brainstorming
# 1
Vague words - Organizations do things better. What is better?
#2
Inappropiate comparisons - How is color film proccesing comparable to frozen food? Time?
#3
Errors in causality - Experience will minimize costs

Introduction
The argument that appeared in the Olympic Foods annual report sent to their stakeholders claims that their experience in the frozen foods industry will make their costs go down and increase profit. This argument contains some egregious flaws in reasoning making the conclusion doubtful.

Body paragraph #1
Primarily, the argument commits errors in causality when drawing the grand sweeping conclusion that gaining experience will result in cost reduction. Of course that time gives organizations the possibility to learn from the past, but is this enough to cause a reduction in cost? It is most likely that time and cost reduction have a high correlation rather than a cause-effect relation. Taking this into consideration, the author fails to provide evidence regarding internal and external aspects that may result in this effect. For example, considering the organization itself, they could be planning to implement some new process regarding their operations, or a more efficient way to carry-out their logistics. As far as the external environment is concerned, the author may explore whether or not the organization can expect a decrease in the cost of the supplies or the services they consume.

Body paragraph #2
Having presented such questionable evidence, the author then cites the case of the color film processing industry to provide evidence to the argument. This comparison is inappropriate for two main reasons. Firstly, the business of film processing seems to have little in common with the frozen food one regarding the services and products they offer, then the assumption that Olympic Foods will reflect this cost reduction effect is without basis. Even if we assume that the comparison is fair, the time lapse considered to draw this parallelism is 30 years away from the present. We hardly can expect that the economic conditions and consumer needs remained the same over time. Instead, the argument should have provided information regarding how the frozen food industry is developing over the past few years to make the argument stand on more solid ground.

Body paragraph #3
The evidence cited involves ambiguous language. For example, the argument asserts that the organizations learn how to “do things better” as they gain experience in the industry. The author fails to indicate which aspects of the business are being improved, and therefore providing a justified argument. For example, the improvements may come from core operations, logistics, financial aspects, among other possibilities.

Conclusion
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the Olympic Food 25 year experience will result in a reduction in cost.