The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholder

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.

This argument states that Olympic foods will soon be able to minimize its costs and thus maximize its profits because Olympic foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday. This conclusion is based on the premise that with the passage of time, an organization becomes more efficient by learning to do things better. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
The first problem with the argument is that it generalized a specific case of color film processing. This evidence is extreme because the author fails to draw a parallel between the processing of color film and the processing of frozen food. Although the cost of print fell for color film processing, the author cannot say the same for frozen food processing with surety.
The second problem is the timeline stated by the author. The author states that 25 years of experience will enable Olympic food to minimize costs and maximize profits. But he fails to substantiate the statement with conclusive evidence. The argument fails to demonstrate a correlation between years in operation and efficiency attained. If any correlation had been shown for any other frozen food processing company, that was able to cut down its cost and obtain processing efficiency in 25 years, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing.
The argument also fails to rule out other reasons that could have contributed to the fall in print cost. For example, a fall in prices of raw materials, availability of substitutes, and fall in demand for the goods could have decreased the print cost from 50 cents for a 5-day service in 1970 to 20 cents one-day service in 1984.
In conclusion, the argument suffers from logical flaws and makes an extreme conclusion based on unproven assumptions. The addition of hard examples and connections between the statements would prove to strengthen the argument."