Hi,
I would really appreciate it if my Analysis of Argument essay could be graded here. It's my first attempt, and I just wanted to see if I have the right approach.
Any criticism or pointers would be helpful.
Thanks!
Aradhita
Essay
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-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.
The information in the excerpt of Olympic Foods' annual report provided here is flawed in many ways. It includes vague theories, irrelevant comparisons and understated targets. The statements made in the excerpt are also based on some assumptions. Clarifying these assumptions, backing their theories with practical examples and solidifying their status as a competent organization would help Olympic Foods with their case.
Firstly, the principle of processing costs depending on the organization's efficiency is incomplete. While efficiency may play a major role in the eventual decrease of costs over time, it is definitely not the only factor. The author has ignored other major factors such as market dynamics, supply and demand issues and competition. For example, the organization may not be able to procure raw materials of the best quality because the best raw material developer in the market has already struck a deal with its competitor. A slump in the market may also contribute to overall increase in costs.
Another point to note is that no basis for timelines regarding Olympic's financial progress has been laid down. It is assumed that twenty-five years is an appropriate time period at the end of which an organization can start minimizing their costs and maximizing their profits. One would assume, in this day and age, that an organization starts maximizing their profits much sooner than that. Here again, the passage has no reference to the current year, so we cannot know whether, in the context of time, the company is doing well or not. Perhaps some statistics covering Olympic's financial facts and figures, aligned with timelines, would help us to determine that.
The biggest flaw is the glaring comparison between the two domains outlined in the passage - color film processing and frozen food processing. In citing some figures from the progress in the color film processing industry, Olympic attempt to remain content in the assumption that they will see the same kind of progress. There is no similarity between the color film industry and frozen food industry, so there is no reason why a principle derived from the color film processing world should apply to Olympic Foods. If, instead, they had compared themselves with a competitor, they could have brought out the differences that set them apart in their field and impressed the reader thus.
In conclusion, Olympic Foods has, in this excerpt from their report, done a poor job of convincing the reader that the organization is doing well. A few examples or statistics to back their claim would have helped their case, as would have a realistic comparison with their competitors from the same industry.
I would really appreciate it if my Analysis of Argument essay could be graded here. It's my first attempt, and I just wanted to see if I have the right approach.
Any criticism or pointers would be helpful.
Thanks!
Aradhita
Essay
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-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.
The information in the excerpt of Olympic Foods' annual report provided here is flawed in many ways. It includes vague theories, irrelevant comparisons and understated targets. The statements made in the excerpt are also based on some assumptions. Clarifying these assumptions, backing their theories with practical examples and solidifying their status as a competent organization would help Olympic Foods with their case.
Firstly, the principle of processing costs depending on the organization's efficiency is incomplete. While efficiency may play a major role in the eventual decrease of costs over time, it is definitely not the only factor. The author has ignored other major factors such as market dynamics, supply and demand issues and competition. For example, the organization may not be able to procure raw materials of the best quality because the best raw material developer in the market has already struck a deal with its competitor. A slump in the market may also contribute to overall increase in costs.
Another point to note is that no basis for timelines regarding Olympic's financial progress has been laid down. It is assumed that twenty-five years is an appropriate time period at the end of which an organization can start minimizing their costs and maximizing their profits. One would assume, in this day and age, that an organization starts maximizing their profits much sooner than that. Here again, the passage has no reference to the current year, so we cannot know whether, in the context of time, the company is doing well or not. Perhaps some statistics covering Olympic's financial facts and figures, aligned with timelines, would help us to determine that.
The biggest flaw is the glaring comparison between the two domains outlined in the passage - color film processing and frozen food processing. In citing some figures from the progress in the color film processing industry, Olympic attempt to remain content in the assumption that they will see the same kind of progress. There is no similarity between the color film industry and frozen food industry, so there is no reason why a principle derived from the color film processing world should apply to Olympic Foods. If, instead, they had compared themselves with a competitor, they could have brought out the differences that set them apart in their field and impressed the reader thus.
In conclusion, Olympic Foods has, in this excerpt from their report, done a poor job of convincing the reader that the organization is doing well. A few examples or statistics to back their claim would have helped their case, as would have a realistic comparison with their competitors from the same industry.
