Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

Hi everyone, this is my first time actually posting on the forum (after lurking for quite a while)

I'm an international student, and I wrote an essay for the first time (it's the first prompt in the Official Guide, so many of you might be familiar with it ^^) and I have no idea on how I should grade it even though I've seen the sample answers for other questions. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could give me their opinion on how I could improve it. I'm a very fast typer (about 150 WPM) so this is obviously a great advantage but it won't be helpful if I can't improve my reasoning. :/ I feel that it's extremely unorganized and I touched upon a lot of issues without fleshing them out. Also, I ran out of time at the end so I couldn't proofread. :/ If anyone has ANY comments on it, I would be very, very grateful. Thank you!!!

---

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 x 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."

The argument that Olympic Foods will be able to minimize its costs, and as a result, earn higher profits, relies on several false assumptions and simplistic logic.

The most glaring flaw in the argumentation is the assumption that Olympic Foods has achieved a significant improvement in reducing processing costs. First of all, there is no evidence presented in the argument about improvements that lead to cost reduction in food processing in the past. The analogy of the development of color film processing is relevant, but it is insufficient because food processing has a multitude of changing factors to consider; for example, due to environmental problems, lack of fertile land for growing crops has induced the usage of pesticides and GMOs, which in turn necessitates adaptive technology in food processing to ensure that these foods are still safe for human consumption. Therefore it is difficult to conclude that food processing has become more cost efficient, even if there were breakthroughs in technology. Secondly, there is no precedent that Olympic Foods has cut down on processing costs for the past 25 years. This argument must be supported by facts, such as whether the company has invested in R&D over the past two decades to achieve such a feat, or reduced spending on processing costs. It is false to assume that just because a certain amount of time has passed, there is an automatic consequence.

Another problem with the argument is its failure to recognize other factors that affect a company’s profitability. Even if Olympic Foods had improved its processing capabilities, processing costs only account for a part of total costs. For example, the advent of multimedia may have led to increased advertising budgets, because companies now have to market themselves on television and other forms of mass media instead of relying on conventional print ads, which are cheaper and easier to produce. Continuously changing trends in consumer perceptions and consumption patterns, such as the preference for cheap, convenient, and easy-to-cook meals in status quo as opposed to that of hearty home-cooked meals, may have depleted Olympic Foods’ sales revenue if it failed to adapt quickly to consumer demands. Additionally, over the years, there may have been more competitors entering the market and making it difficult for Olympic Foods to maintain its current position. The argument does not address Olympic Foods’ stance against these types of issues.

Thus, because the argument leaves out conclusive evidence to support its claim, it is not well-reasoned. In order for Olympic Foods to substantiate its claims it must show in its annual report how the company has increased profitability over the past 25 years.