-
ArpanaAmishi
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:52 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
Argument
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
Experience has a great thing in itself as it makes you more efficient and tells what is the efficient method to do a particular Job, that's why great organizations completely relies on experiences resources and sometimes they are asked to develop SOPs (Standard operating procedure ), that further helps organization and make sure no one is trying to reinvent the wheel. As someone also said experience makes a man perfect, same applies for organizations also. Experienced organizations know how to do things better in time (or sometimes before time) that further reduces the cost specifically the operational cost.
In the preceding statement author claims that processing cost go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we can not accept his argument as valid
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author claims in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell 50 cents for five day service (that is 50/5=10 cent per day ) to 20 cents for one day service in 1984, however in reality if you have closer look in 1970 the cost was 10 cent per day and 20 cent in 1984 respectively. That means there is an increase of 10 cent per day in 14 years time span. Where is cost reduction? Secondary author didn't mention the parameter on which cost is measured; May be reduction is just because of used material cost is getting down due to technology enhancement. For an example if a processing required rubber as a raw material, I am sure since 1970 to 1984 there would be significant difference in processing cost. It is not just because of that we learned how to do things better, instead Rubber cost itself is getting down as we learned more advanced and cheaper technology for Rubber manufacturing.
The author premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First author doesn't mention how the processing of food would get cheaper ; as per current scenario people are getting more conscious towards health and food processing organization are struggling that how to provide more healthier food .And in-fact it requires advanced technology ,henceforth higher the processing cost. For an example in US organic food is much more costlier due to its processing and this cost is getting up each subsequent year as almost every year food scientist/inventor are developing new technology that further cost little high comparatively. Secondary author didn't provide how the food would quality would be maintained while trying to reduce the processing cost.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between processing of material and processing of food he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author could have made his argument more reasonable by providing the parameters on which he counted cost and food industry relationship with other manufacturing industries, moreover the explanation on how the food processing cost would go low would impacting quality, would be helpful
Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, He could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The lack of cost measurement parameters, food industry relationship with all other industries and how to maintain food quality while keep on reducing the processing cost on incremental basis.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support .Without these things ,his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince 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 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
Experience has a great thing in itself as it makes you more efficient and tells what is the efficient method to do a particular Job, that's why great organizations completely relies on experiences resources and sometimes they are asked to develop SOPs (Standard operating procedure ), that further helps organization and make sure no one is trying to reinvent the wheel. As someone also said experience makes a man perfect, same applies for organizations also. Experienced organizations know how to do things better in time (or sometimes before time) that further reduces the cost specifically the operational cost.
In the preceding statement author claims that processing cost go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we can not accept his argument as valid
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author claims in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell 50 cents for five day service (that is 50/5=10 cent per day ) to 20 cents for one day service in 1984, however in reality if you have closer look in 1970 the cost was 10 cent per day and 20 cent in 1984 respectively. That means there is an increase of 10 cent per day in 14 years time span. Where is cost reduction? Secondary author didn't mention the parameter on which cost is measured; May be reduction is just because of used material cost is getting down due to technology enhancement. For an example if a processing required rubber as a raw material, I am sure since 1970 to 1984 there would be significant difference in processing cost. It is not just because of that we learned how to do things better, instead Rubber cost itself is getting down as we learned more advanced and cheaper technology for Rubber manufacturing.
The author premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First author doesn't mention how the processing of food would get cheaper ; as per current scenario people are getting more conscious towards health and food processing organization are struggling that how to provide more healthier food .And in-fact it requires advanced technology ,henceforth higher the processing cost. For an example in US organic food is much more costlier due to its processing and this cost is getting up each subsequent year as almost every year food scientist/inventor are developing new technology that further cost little high comparatively. Secondary author didn't provide how the food would quality would be maintained while trying to reduce the processing cost.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between processing of material and processing of food he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author could have made his argument more reasonable by providing the parameters on which he counted cost and food industry relationship with other manufacturing industries, moreover the explanation on how the food processing cost would go low would impacting quality, would be helpful
Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, He could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The lack of cost measurement parameters, food industry relationship with all other industries and how to maintain food quality while keep on reducing the processing cost on incremental basis.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support .Without these things ,his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince people.
