Argument:
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."
Response:
The argument that Olympic Foods' 25 years of experience will enable them to minimize costs and maximize profits, omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that 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 simply throws light on a trend in color film processing over a period of 14 years. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the Olympic Foods and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not addresses the main evidence as how the processing of foods is analogous to processing of color films. The argument assumes that both are same and in a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument states that the same principles apply to the processing of foods. The argument fails to take into account that the decline in the cost of processing of color films during the above stated period can be attributed to the technological advancements, availability of cheap raw material and increase in demand in that particular industry. On the contrary, the argument fails to provide any strong evidence that the demand for frozen foods has seen any rise or that any new methods and techniques have reduced food processing costs. Finally, the argument also assumes that 25 years of experience is enough for the Olympic foods to minimize the costs, basing their assumption on the observed decline in film processing costs in mere 14 years.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely basing the foundation of the argument on an analogy, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
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."
Response:
The argument that Olympic Foods' 25 years of experience will enable them to minimize costs and maximize profits, omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that 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 simply throws light on a trend in color film processing over a period of 14 years. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the Olympic Foods and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not addresses the main evidence as how the processing of foods is analogous to processing of color films. The argument assumes that both are same and in a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument states that the same principles apply to the processing of foods. The argument fails to take into account that the decline in the cost of processing of color films during the above stated period can be attributed to the technological advancements, availability of cheap raw material and increase in demand in that particular industry. On the contrary, the argument fails to provide any strong evidence that the demand for frozen foods has seen any rise or that any new methods and techniques have reduced food processing costs. Finally, the argument also assumes that 25 years of experience is enough for the Olympic foods to minimize the costs, basing their assumption on the observed decline in film processing costs in mere 14 years.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely basing the foundation of the argument on an analogy, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
