"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 Response
In a competitive era, where most of the technological advantage can be easily replicated, minimizing cost and improving efficiency can give the cutting advantage to a firm and push it further compared to most of its competitors. In the preceding statements, author claims that Olympic foods, which will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, is capable to use its long experience and translate it into lower costs and higher profits. Though his reasoning may well have merits, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premise, and in the light of the same, we can't accept his arguments as valid.
The primary weakness of the author's arguments lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The author has compared food industry with the color film processing industry, which looks highly illogical. A lot of the cost in the food industry may be associated with the damages out of rotten food. Example of a Color film processing firm's improved efficiency doesn't take this obsolesces into consideration. Also in food industry lot of damages are related to transportation, which again is not reflected in any film processing firm.
The secondary weakness lies in the assumption that Olympic foods will be able to translate its long experience into reduced costs. It could be possible that instead of improving, they have deteriorated in their efficiency. Hence the mentioned advantage can never actually materialize. Moreover, the author has assumed a specific case as a general reality. Maybe the case of the mentioned color film unit was unique and other firms have found it hard to replicate the same.
While the argument has few loopholes in the premises and assumptions that are not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author could have strengthened his points by developing the logical relationship between the color film industry and the food industry. It would have been better if instead of mentioning about just one firm, he would have taken an entire industry. Such an example would have provided a solid base to make the conclusion more reliable.
In sum, based on the illogical premises and assumptions renders his conclusions invalid. If author wants to change his reader's mind then he has to provide more solid relationship, largely restructure his argument and provide better and more reflective data that indicates the above mentioned conclusions.
[/b]
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 Response
In a competitive era, where most of the technological advantage can be easily replicated, minimizing cost and improving efficiency can give the cutting advantage to a firm and push it further compared to most of its competitors. In the preceding statements, author claims that Olympic foods, which will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, is capable to use its long experience and translate it into lower costs and higher profits. Though his reasoning may well have merits, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premise, and in the light of the same, we can't accept his arguments as valid.
The primary weakness of the author's arguments lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The author has compared food industry with the color film processing industry, which looks highly illogical. A lot of the cost in the food industry may be associated with the damages out of rotten food. Example of a Color film processing firm's improved efficiency doesn't take this obsolesces into consideration. Also in food industry lot of damages are related to transportation, which again is not reflected in any film processing firm.
The secondary weakness lies in the assumption that Olympic foods will be able to translate its long experience into reduced costs. It could be possible that instead of improving, they have deteriorated in their efficiency. Hence the mentioned advantage can never actually materialize. Moreover, the author has assumed a specific case as a general reality. Maybe the case of the mentioned color film unit was unique and other firms have found it hard to replicate the same.
While the argument has few loopholes in the premises and assumptions that are not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author could have strengthened his points by developing the logical relationship between the color film industry and the food industry. It would have been better if instead of mentioning about just one firm, he would have taken an entire industry. Such an example would have provided a solid base to make the conclusion more reliable.
In sum, based on the illogical premises and assumptions renders his conclusions invalid. If author wants to change his reader's mind then he has to provide more solid relationship, largely restructure his argument and provide better and more reflective data that indicates the above mentioned conclusions.
[/b]
