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."
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 argument makes a number of assumptions in regard to the ability to minimize cost and maximize profit based on the tenure of a company and the learning capability of a company. This argument is flawed in a number of ways which I will be evaluating in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, the argument implies at cause-effect relationship between learning to do things better and the cost of processing. There is no evidence to support this assertion. And the action of just learning to do things better wouldn't unlikely reduce the cost of processing. Perhaps cost of processing would reduce with a better supply chain system, cheaper raw materials etc.
Secondly, the argument compares the reduction in cost of color film processing in the 1984 to what we he would expect for the Frozen food company. This aspect of the argument is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly he compares reduction in cost of two items that are not alike and also in different times (The 3 by 5 inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for a one day service in 1984). There could be numerous reasons as to why the print fee fell, perhaps the cheaper cost of material which may have nothing to do with organizations learning to do things better. The argument then further asserts that the same principle applies to processing of food. This is highly flawed as there is no evidence supporting this assertion.
Thirdly, the argument implies that because Olympic Foods will be celebrating its 25th birthday that this in effect will help minimize cost and maximize profit. There are so many factors that could affect cost and maximize profit and it doesn't seem plausible that the age of a firm will translate or directly correlate to minimizing cost and maximize profit. And also minimizing cost doesn't directly mean that profit will be maximized.
The argument in my opinion is not well reasoned because of the flaws I have raised in my previous paragraphs. In order to make the argument more convincing, the author could provide evidence that would dispute any other reason aside from the one stated could be a possible way to reduce costs. The author could also provide a better example of a similar company who experienced reduction in costs simply because the organization simply learnt how to do things better.
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 argument makes a number of assumptions in regard to the ability to minimize cost and maximize profit based on the tenure of a company and the learning capability of a company. This argument is flawed in a number of ways which I will be evaluating in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, the argument implies at cause-effect relationship between learning to do things better and the cost of processing. There is no evidence to support this assertion. And the action of just learning to do things better wouldn't unlikely reduce the cost of processing. Perhaps cost of processing would reduce with a better supply chain system, cheaper raw materials etc.
Secondly, the argument compares the reduction in cost of color film processing in the 1984 to what we he would expect for the Frozen food company. This aspect of the argument is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly he compares reduction in cost of two items that are not alike and also in different times (The 3 by 5 inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for a one day service in 1984). There could be numerous reasons as to why the print fee fell, perhaps the cheaper cost of material which may have nothing to do with organizations learning to do things better. The argument then further asserts that the same principle applies to processing of food. This is highly flawed as there is no evidence supporting this assertion.
Thirdly, the argument implies that because Olympic Foods will be celebrating its 25th birthday that this in effect will help minimize cost and maximize profit. There are so many factors that could affect cost and maximize profit and it doesn't seem plausible that the age of a firm will translate or directly correlate to minimizing cost and maximize profit. And also minimizing cost doesn't directly mean that profit will be maximized.
The argument in my opinion is not well reasoned because of the flaws I have raised in my previous paragraphs. In order to make the argument more convincing, the author could provide evidence that would dispute any other reason aside from the one stated could be a possible way to reduce costs. The author could also provide a better example of a similar company who experienced reduction in costs simply because the organization simply learnt how to do things better.
