This is my second argument essay. Any comments, ratings are highly appreciated.
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 reasond... etc.
The argument states that the company will be able to maximize profits only because they are in business for twenty-five years and have a good experience in the industry. The argument is seriously flawed for the following three reasons explained below.
Firstly, the argument gives an example of film processing industry; however the company's main line of business frozen foods. There is in no way any similarity in the functionality of these two industries even though the argument states that the same principle applies for processing of food as for processing of film. The working conditions of both the industries in question are completely unrelated, questioning the validity of the example. The evidence given in the argument might be true; however, since there is no correlation between the two industries, the argument seems to be flawed.
Secondly, the argument does not talk about any concrete techniques about how the company plans to reduce production costs. Solely on the basis of experience of a company and a long time in the market it cannot be proven that the production costs will decrease. The argument vaguely mentions doing things better, but does not really shed light on how things can be done better. Unless and until the company has a solid implementation plan or a new technique developed which can reduce the production costs, argument does not seem to hold good.
Thirdly and probably the most important point from the stockholders point of view is the lack of numbers in the argument. The argument states that over time costs of processing goes down, however it doesn't state that by how much or by what percentage. If the argument had provided numbers saying that twenty-five years back cost of producing one batch of frozen food was say $x and now after twenty-five years of experience in the industry it cost 10% of that dollar value, then it would have strengthened the argument. Due to lack of such numbers, the argument further suffers more flaws.
Finally, due to the reasons stated above, it can be concluded that the argument is seriously flawed and unless it provides more support for its reasoning with concrete examples and evidence it does not seem to be true.
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 reasond... etc.
The argument states that the company will be able to maximize profits only because they are in business for twenty-five years and have a good experience in the industry. The argument is seriously flawed for the following three reasons explained below.
Firstly, the argument gives an example of film processing industry; however the company's main line of business frozen foods. There is in no way any similarity in the functionality of these two industries even though the argument states that the same principle applies for processing of food as for processing of film. The working conditions of both the industries in question are completely unrelated, questioning the validity of the example. The evidence given in the argument might be true; however, since there is no correlation between the two industries, the argument seems to be flawed.
Secondly, the argument does not talk about any concrete techniques about how the company plans to reduce production costs. Solely on the basis of experience of a company and a long time in the market it cannot be proven that the production costs will decrease. The argument vaguely mentions doing things better, but does not really shed light on how things can be done better. Unless and until the company has a solid implementation plan or a new technique developed which can reduce the production costs, argument does not seem to hold good.
Thirdly and probably the most important point from the stockholders point of view is the lack of numbers in the argument. The argument states that over time costs of processing goes down, however it doesn't state that by how much or by what percentage. If the argument had provided numbers saying that twenty-five years back cost of producing one batch of frozen food was say $x and now after twenty-five years of experience in the industry it cost 10% of that dollar value, then it would have strengthened the argument. Due to lack of such numbers, the argument further suffers more flaws.
Finally, due to the reasons stated above, it can be concluded that the argument is seriously flawed and unless it provides more support for its reasoning with concrete examples and evidence it does not seem to be true.
