Hi Guys,
i would be grateful if you could review my essay.
Question:
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 twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable
us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure
to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For
example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie
the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might
weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would
strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would
make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better
evaluate its conclusion.
My Essay:
The argument, citing the historical cost reductions seen in processing film as evidence, claims that Olympic Foods will increase profits while reducing costs on the premise that with time and experience, the processing of becomes more economical due to efficiencies that evolve with time.
Granted there is some merit in the general sense that costs could be reduced as a company increases its knowledge, but this is not always the case. The assumption that the cost of processing go down because the organization becomes more efficient is flawed as this doesn't account for changing market conditions such as the increase of raw materials required to process film and transport. If the raw materials required to process film become scarce or affected by political conflict, then this could counter the argument.
Following on from the above, costs could actually increase under extreme circumstances where the labor and domain expertise required to process food becomes scarce due to market forces and evolution of industry sectors, in which labor skills may be transferable. These other sectors could dominate labor demand thus have a detrimental impact on Olympic Foods.
Furthermore, there is also the risk of dwindling demand for the food that Olympic Foods serves to the market place due to constantly changing consumer preferences. Longevity or experience is not necessarily a sufficient reason to assume that costs will be minimized and profits maximised.
What could strengthen the argument is if its competitors dropped out of the marketplace, thus giving it a monopoly. The argument could be made that as a result of maintaining the dominant position, with their experience and no other competitors to dilute its market share, Olympic Foods could increase profits while reducing costs.
In conclusion, taking into account the argument and discussion above, a comparison has been drawn from one industry sector and used as evidence to cite a claim in another. This thinking is clearly flawed as evidenced by the above counter arguments.
![]()
Add to My Schools
Download table