Can someone score my essay and help me with feedback to improve further? This is my second essay.
GMATNinja chineseburned would really appreciate your inputs.
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.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that Olympic foods, based on the principle that with long experience makes organization efficient, with 25 years of experience will be able to minimize costs and maximize profits. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there are no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First the argument readily assumes that just as a color film processing company achieved efficiency, the food processing company would also gain similar efficiency. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author parallels two companies in different industry to run on a similar principle without regarding for the dynamics that the two different companies operate in. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of what specifically makes it more likely for the food processing company to achieve efficiency similar to that of film processing. Without that, the statement is a mere example of unconvincing analogy.
Second, the argument bases its claim on a principle which is too generalized. The mention of this principle is too vague as it has no basis for generalization. If the author had supplemented relevant evidence on how many organization’s experience the principle has been based upon, there could be some credibility. Further it doesn’t take into account that organization could actually increase cost if things went wrong and learnings not documented. The author could have strengthened the argument by providing further details on how a company can get efficient with learning in general, and how this principle applies to food processing company as well.
Finally, the argument concludes that based on the efficiency principle the cost would go down and make the company profitable. This statement again is an example of sweeping assumption. Though its generally accepted that reduced cost is one of the drivers of profitability, there are several other factors that impacts profitability equally. For example, If the competitive and consumer pressure forces the company to reduce its prices, the profitability will certainly decline because of lower margin despite efficiency. Without any evidence on how the company would manage to keep check on other drivers of profitability, the reader is left with an impression that the conclusion is merely a broad jump off from the available evidence.
In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts mentioned above. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/conclusion, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this specific case the argument lacked evidence on several grounds. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
close
07 Jan 2014, 09:53
