GMAT Essays (AWA)

Scores/Comments are greatly appreciated!

PROMPT:
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 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

MY ESSAY:
The argument that appeared in Olympic Foods' annual report asserts that because the company will soon celebrate its 25th birthday it will be able to increase its efficiency by minimizing costs and maximizing profits. The author of this statement uses an example of the evolution of efficiency in the color film processing industry as a means of supporting his argument. Ultimately however, the author's argument is fatally flawed by a number of faulty assumptions.

The most significant flaw in the author's argument lies in his use of the color film processing example. The author incorrectly assumes that the decrease in service time and price is only the result of the organization learning how to do things better and nothing else. The decrease in cost could have resulted from the introduction of cheaper cameras and an increased demand for color prints. This increase in demand could have allowing the organization to decrease the cost per print. Moreover, the decrease in service time could have been a result in a new technological development in processing and not any lessons the organization learned from its long operational history.

Additionally, the author incorrectly assumes that simply because Olympic Foods has been in business for a "long" time, it has learned to do things better. For all we know, Olympic Foods could be doing things wrong for the last 25 years and not have learned to do anything better. Alternatively, Olympic foods could have only learned last year how to do things better and thus would not have had sufficient time to implement those lessons in order to become more efficient.

A final flaw in the author's argument is that he/she incorrectly assumes that the color film processing industry and the food processing industry share sufficient aspects in common to be comparable. The reason the color film processing industry might have been able to reduce costs and processing time might be due to the fact that competition within the industry is minimal. Quite differently, competition might be very high in the food processing industry thusly making the two industries incomparable for the purposes of the author's argument.

There are a number of ways in which the author could have strengthened his argument. The most necessary of which includes providing specifics examples of why the color film processing industry was able to reduce their costs and service time. Additionally, specific examples of how the two industries are comparable would have bridged the gap in the author's assumption. Lastly, the inclusion of some of the lessons Olympic Foods has learned over its 25 years would have supported the assumption that they learned to do things better and strengthened his/her argument. Until the three flaws in the author's argument are addressed by at least some of the solutions provided, ultimately the author's argument is too flawed to be convincing.