Statement:
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
“Over time, the cost 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 form 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for on-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since the 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.”
The paragraph states that the twenty five year experience of Olympus Foods will enable them to minimize cost and maximize profit. The author’s conclusion is vulnerable and poorly supported.
First of all, the author uses an example in film industry to support the case. However, he or she fails to provide the relationship between film processing industry and food processing industry. The fact that the color film industry has successfully reduced its processing cost doesn’t not guarantee that the frozen food industry can do the same. If the author provided an example of another processor of frozen food that reduced its cost over time, the argument would be more convincing.
Second, the author assumes that over time, an organization would definitely learn how to lower the costs and become more efficient. This is not always the case. Many organizations have been in their business for many years still have not found a way of cutting costs. Also, the author fails to take into account that experience may not be the only factor that decides the efficiency of an industry. Technological improvements, natural conditions, government regulations, are also some of the factors that could affect the ability of cutting costs of an organization.
Because of the weak assumpions above, the argument is unpersuasive. The author could have done better on persuading readers by providing more evidences, fulfilling the flaws discussed above instead of jumping to conclusion based on his or her assumptions.![]()
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
“Over time, the cost 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 form 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for on-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since the 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.”
The paragraph states that the twenty five year experience of Olympus Foods will enable them to minimize cost and maximize profit. The author’s conclusion is vulnerable and poorly supported.
First of all, the author uses an example in film industry to support the case. However, he or she fails to provide the relationship between film processing industry and food processing industry. The fact that the color film industry has successfully reduced its processing cost doesn’t not guarantee that the frozen food industry can do the same. If the author provided an example of another processor of frozen food that reduced its cost over time, the argument would be more convincing.
Second, the author assumes that over time, an organization would definitely learn how to lower the costs and become more efficient. This is not always the case. Many organizations have been in their business for many years still have not found a way of cutting costs. Also, the author fails to take into account that experience may not be the only factor that decides the efficiency of an industry. Technological improvements, natural conditions, government regulations, are also some of the factors that could affect the ability of cutting costs of an organization.
Because of the weak assumpions above, the argument is unpersuasive. The author could have done better on persuading readers by providing more evidences, fulfilling the flaws discussed above instead of jumping to conclusion based on his or her assumptions.