I am not a native speaker and it is a stretch for me to write these essays.
I'd appreciate if you could look at my essay and rate it 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 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.
The author claims that organisations tend to become more efficient over time and, thus, reduce their processing costs. He or she cites the price for color film prints as an example of this phenomenon. However, attentive reader might notice that is probably not a good example because it is from another industry and it, actually, weakens the conclusion. The author concludes by saying that the profits are expected to be maximized by the 25th anniversary of Olympic Foods without providing any evidence to support the conclusion. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that organisations do things better over time and that doing things better leads to lowering the costs.
This statement is a stretch because the real-life examples of long-history companies show that at some point some of them become too lazy and rigid to be creative, and eventually, fail to achieve their goals. Moreover, some businesses do not focus on lowering the costs, while keeping their profits maximized by providing better quality of service and keeping their customers loyal.
This statement could be strengthened by stating that the companies in food industry are mostly becoming better over time and cost efficiency is the only way to maximize their profits.
Secondly, the argument claims that the cost of 50 cents for five-day service is lower than the cost of 20 centers for one-days service. However, if we divide the first cost by five days and compare only the costs for one-day service, we will see that 1984-cost is actually higher than the 1970-cost. This, probably, could be explained by the fact that the quality of print is much better, resulting in an increased price.
Nevertheless, this claim is again a weak and unconvincing since argument fails to compare the one-day costs of the service.
Thirdly, the argument concludes that 25-years is enough to reach mastery in the food industry and the profits will be maximized.
However, it is not clear how exactly the company is going to achieve this target. Is it going to cut the salaries or lay off some employees? Is it going to market new products? Is it going to attract new customers or make existing ones loyal?
Without these supporting examples of how exactly the company will achieve maximized profits, the reader is left with impression, that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated statement. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to rely on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be strengthened, if the author mentioned all the relevant facts to support his or her assumptions.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.