Could you please read my eassy and provide me with feedback and a score? This is my very first one. I followed the template from this forum and didn't do this entirely from memory yet. It's more of an 'applying concepts' run before I jump out of the nest and fly. Can you let me know if I am on the right track?
"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 3x5 print fell 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for 1-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".
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the same principle that applies to processing cost reduction in film processing will be applicable to cost reduction in other organizations, specifically to the processing of food, as the organization learns to do things better. Though this claim may well have merit, the author poorly presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept this argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lie in his unsubstantiated premises that reducing costs will in turn increase profits. There are various elements to increasing profits for a company, regardless of industry. As such, in considering the film processing, not only is the industry completely different than food processing, but there are other factors within the business that affected pricing. One of the things to consider is that film processing can now be done at home. Consumers can now take photos digitally and keep them in that format without ever needing to process. Film processing now is essentially free due to this. This price certainly isn't making a lot of profit for film processing centers and thus they must have alternate ways to make money and turn a profit. Considering that line of thought, it's obvious to see why reducing costs cannot be a sole responsibility for profit.
The secondary issue is that the author uses the long experience as a reason to enable them to minimize costs. Being able to claim tenure in a certain industry or line of work doesn't necessarily mean that it enables you to be cost effective and maximize profits. In fact, there are several business who have succumbed to technology and have been unable to keep up with the pace of the economy and society demands that far exceed the 25 year mark. Some older companies too have had to spend a lot of money to re-train employees on new ideas and update their technology and equipment in order to function. This can severely affect costs and profits. As such, this does not link profitability with the ability to maximize profits and reduce costs as the author takes for granted that the company is able to keep up with those strains.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author lacks evidence to explain what caused filmed processing centers to reduce profits. He assumes that it was due to efficiency and better reorganizing, but there is no evidence to support that or to explain what those things are. For instance, the cost of the material it takes to produce a 3-by-5 print may have reduced during that time period, which caused the reduction in pricing. That would have little to do with the author's claim that color film processing is becoming better organized.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First, the author assumes that the way in which color film processing has become more efficient and organized are going to be the same ways in which the Olympic Foods will do so. The author completely ignores the fact that the film processing and food processing are completely different and surely have various nuances that require a great deal of differences in how they operate. As such, to assume that the same ability to be profitable is something that can be transferable from film processing to food processing is inaccurate. Secondly, the author also assumes that food processing profit is dependent on length of experience and by being more efficient and organized. As earlier mentioned, there are various reasons for profit. Simply being in the industry for a long period of time and considering one or two methodologies will not be sufficient and will not lead to a profitable business without considering the implication of other dependent and independent factors such as labor, transit costs and time, material costs, etc.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render this conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change the readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, and clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"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 3x5 print fell 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for 1-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".
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the same principle that applies to processing cost reduction in film processing will be applicable to cost reduction in other organizations, specifically to the processing of food, as the organization learns to do things better. Though this claim may well have merit, the author poorly presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept this argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lie in his unsubstantiated premises that reducing costs will in turn increase profits. There are various elements to increasing profits for a company, regardless of industry. As such, in considering the film processing, not only is the industry completely different than food processing, but there are other factors within the business that affected pricing. One of the things to consider is that film processing can now be done at home. Consumers can now take photos digitally and keep them in that format without ever needing to process. Film processing now is essentially free due to this. This price certainly isn't making a lot of profit for film processing centers and thus they must have alternate ways to make money and turn a profit. Considering that line of thought, it's obvious to see why reducing costs cannot be a sole responsibility for profit.
The secondary issue is that the author uses the long experience as a reason to enable them to minimize costs. Being able to claim tenure in a certain industry or line of work doesn't necessarily mean that it enables you to be cost effective and maximize profits. In fact, there are several business who have succumbed to technology and have been unable to keep up with the pace of the economy and society demands that far exceed the 25 year mark. Some older companies too have had to spend a lot of money to re-train employees on new ideas and update their technology and equipment in order to function. This can severely affect costs and profits. As such, this does not link profitability with the ability to maximize profits and reduce costs as the author takes for granted that the company is able to keep up with those strains.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author lacks evidence to explain what caused filmed processing centers to reduce profits. He assumes that it was due to efficiency and better reorganizing, but there is no evidence to support that or to explain what those things are. For instance, the cost of the material it takes to produce a 3-by-5 print may have reduced during that time period, which caused the reduction in pricing. That would have little to do with the author's claim that color film processing is becoming better organized.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First, the author assumes that the way in which color film processing has become more efficient and organized are going to be the same ways in which the Olympic Foods will do so. The author completely ignores the fact that the film processing and food processing are completely different and surely have various nuances that require a great deal of differences in how they operate. As such, to assume that the same ability to be profitable is something that can be transferable from film processing to food processing is inaccurate. Secondly, the author also assumes that food processing profit is dependent on length of experience and by being more efficient and organized. As earlier mentioned, there are various reasons for profit. Simply being in the industry for a long period of time and considering one or two methodologies will not be sufficient and will not lead to a profitable business without considering the implication of other dependent and independent factors such as labor, transit costs and time, material costs, etc.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render this conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change the readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, and clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
