This Analysis of an Argument was taken from Knewton's AWA topic bank. I hope someone can give this feedback and that this and the discussion generated helps you out! My test is Monday the 1st, so down to crunch time.
"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 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.
My response:
The author states that food processing costs for Olympic Foods will go down due to a greater level of efficiency in their processes and uses color film processing as an example. It is true that there is a correlation between efficient processing and minimizing costs and maximizing profits. However, the author does not make a clear comparison between film processing and food processing and makes numerous assumptions based upon little data.
Film processing and food processing are two unrelated fields that the author is attempting to compare. Just because film processing became more efficient over a 14 year period does not mean that food processing will become more efficient over a 25 year period. The most obvious reason is that film processing was a relatively new technology compared to food processing and had a lot of room for new techniques and methods to lower costs whereas food processing was and has been fairly consistent for many years.
In addition, the author fails to take into account other expenses that may have accounted for the decrease in the processing costs of film. This includes reduced prices and increased availability for chemicals, paper and other critical materiel used in film processing. Conversely, for food processing, prices for the commodities, including the foodstuff and oil, used in and for food processing could rise, which, despite increasing efficiency in the actual process, could raise prices.
"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 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.
My response:
The author states that food processing costs for Olympic Foods will go down due to a greater level of efficiency in their processes and uses color film processing as an example. It is true that there is a correlation between efficient processing and minimizing costs and maximizing profits. However, the author does not make a clear comparison between film processing and food processing and makes numerous assumptions based upon little data.
Film processing and food processing are two unrelated fields that the author is attempting to compare. Just because film processing became more efficient over a 14 year period does not mean that food processing will become more efficient over a 25 year period. The most obvious reason is that film processing was a relatively new technology compared to food processing and had a lot of room for new techniques and methods to lower costs whereas food processing was and has been fairly consistent for many years.
In addition, the author fails to take into account other expenses that may have accounted for the decrease in the processing costs of film. This includes reduced prices and increased availability for chemicals, paper and other critical materiel used in film processing. Conversely, for food processing, prices for the commodities, including the foodstuff and oil, used in and for food processing could rise, which, despite increasing efficiency in the actual process, could raise prices.
