It's the first prompt in
the official guide.
“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.”
I took 50 mins in writing this. Didn't check grammar. Want to know what my writing level is, and how I should improve my writing style(trying to imitate the 6 pts style in the book)
THANK YOU!!!
Essay below:
The argument that Olympic food will maximize profit by reducing cost because the firm has been in the industry for a long time is unsound and fundamentally flawed. It missed the underlying reason for improvement in efficiency. The example of film processing, which was used to support the reasoning behind the argument, is also inappropriate, because it did not correctly analyze the reason behind the improvement in efficiency of film processing and the analogy drawn between film processing and food processing is not explained and did not serve its purpose.
The most fatal flaw of the argument stems from its incorrect attribution of efficiency improvement to length of engagement in a practice. Increase in the length of practices is a by-product of the underlying reason of improvement in efficiency, namely the improvement of practice methodology and technology. Length of practice is could mean that the practitioner has spent more time to improve its methods and technology of production. But it would be logically unsound to draw direct causality between length of practice time and production efficiency. The second flaw lies in the argument’s usage of supporting evidence. While processing of film and processing of food both include the word “process”, the technic behind these two actions can be vastly different. The maturity level of technology for food processing and film processing from 1970 to 1984 can also be very different---mature technology normally develop slower than technology in early stage since there is little room for improvement. Therefore, without aligning the technic and maturity level of the two practice, the analogy between food processing and film processing provides little valid support for the argument. Lastly, though minor comparing to the previous two flaws, the argument does not fully consider the diver behind maximizing profit. While decreasing cost is a factor that could potentially increase profit, increase in revenue is another way to increase profit. Without considering both cost and revenue, the argument made a rush conclusion in claiming Olympic can maximize profit.
The argument would be more logical if it makes more thorough analysis of the reason behind efficiency improvement, expand its analysis on maximizing profit, and provide a more suitable supporting evidence.