Of course you can ask me about other topics. You can put those questions in the appropriate forum and just let me know that they are there - put a link at the bottom of this discussion for example.
Okay - so for the film processing/ frozen foods argument that you have posted above...
Start by identifying the main conclusion and the evidence. Then you can put together three paragraphs like these three.
1) The evidence = the price fell from 50 cents to 20 cents and from 5-day to one day service.
Their use of this evidence = it shows that the organization is more efficient, that the organizations have "learned how to do things better."
Does the decline in price really show what they say it shows? Does the drop mean that the "organization is more efficient?" Does it mean that they have "learned how to do things better?" It could simply be 100% about the change in technology. It may have nothing to do with the organization, they may have the same stores, the same number of employees the same profit margins, etc. but they just happen to be using the new technology.
So that is the first paragraph - question their use of the evidence, does the evidence even say what they imply that it does?
2) For paragraph 2 I begin by saying - even if the evidence proves what they say it does, this still does not justify their next assumption.
In this case their extension of evidence (in other words, their assumption) is "the same principle applies to the processing of food." Does it? Do the same principles involved in processing of photographs really apply to food? One is very technological and uses chemicals and inks in small quantities. The other is food, which is heavier, spoils quickly, needs refrigeration or freezing or canning. Also food has been around a REALLY long time and you would think that food processing has already been subject to more efficiencies than photographic processing which was still fairly new in 1970.
You do not need to prove any of these things that I have mentioned, just make logical points that show your doubts as to the way they extend the evidence. Say that even if their basic evidence of 50 cents down to 20 cents does show that photo processing organizations have become more efficient (as opposed to just using new technology), this likely does not apply to something totally different as in processing food.
3) Finally, it is time to address the main conclusion. On the AWA the main conclusion often goes beyond what we can prove. In this case if the conclusion said that "Olympic Foods may be able to become more efficient" that would have been a more acceptable conclusion given the evidence. Instead the conclusion is "we can expect that our long experience (25 yrs) will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
Wow!! Maximize profits??? We get that from the photo processing becoming cheaper? Did the photo processors get to maximize profits - or did the competition drive down prices? Minimizing costs is one thing, maximizing prices is another. And even minimizing costs is not proven. What about the costs of the new equipment that allowed for the one day processing? In terms of Olympic Foods how much would new equipment cost to make that process more efficient? But in the end it all comes down to one thing - even taken in the best possible way, this evidence does not show that profits will be maximized. Many other things need to be considered like the costs of the food that will be processed and the price that the processed foods are sold for.
That is an example of what I am talking about...
