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.
In the following argument, the author states that the cost of food processing can be minimized just like the cost of film processing was minimized in the past. The following argument is flawed. In drawing this conclusion the author fails to take into account that film processing and food processing are two entire different industries. The argument can be strengthened but given the assumptions and lack of actual data - it certainly has many flaws.
The main flaw in this argument is that the author is making a strong assumption that the food and film industries are similar and what worked in the film industry might work in the food industry as-well. In drawing this conclusion, the author did not provide any other relevant information and concluded a strong conclusion instead of providing any additional information.
Secondly, the author is assuming that the film industry and the food industry works in a similar fashion. What the author did not realize is that, the things that worked for the film industry might not work for Olympic Foods, so expecting the same cost reduction would be tough considering we don't have any other statistical data provided by author for the food industry.
As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated. The argument can be strengthened if the author provides us with more relevant information but since there is no information, the premise holds very little ground.
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.
In the following argument, the author states that the cost of food processing can be minimized just like the cost of film processing was minimized in the past. The following argument is flawed. In drawing this conclusion the author fails to take into account that film processing and food processing are two entire different industries. The argument can be strengthened but given the assumptions and lack of actual data - it certainly has many flaws.
The main flaw in this argument is that the author is making a strong assumption that the food and film industries are similar and what worked in the film industry might work in the food industry as-well. In drawing this conclusion, the author did not provide any other relevant information and concluded a strong conclusion instead of providing any additional information.
Secondly, the author is assuming that the film industry and the food industry works in a similar fashion. What the author did not realize is that, the things that worked for the film industry might not work for Olympic Foods, so expecting the same cost reduction would be tough considering we don't have any other statistical data provided by author for the food industry.
As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated. The argument can be strengthened if the author provides us with more relevant information but since there is no information, the premise holds very little ground.
