Hello!
I just wrote my first AWA essay and would really appreciate any feedback you might have for me.
Here is the prompt:
The argument presented by Olympic Food's annual report is flawed for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the argument rests on the mistaken assumption that one can compare processing costs in food processing to those in film processing, which renders its main conclusion that Olympic Foods years of experience will result in cost minimization, invalid.
The annual report's first mistake is to equate the production costs of two very different industries. The report presents the production cost decrease in color film production from 50 cents in 1970 to 20 cents in 1984 as evidence to then conclude that their own costs will follow the same trend. Film production and food production use very different skills, machinery, etc. and therefore carry different costs. Furthermore, one cannot assume that the technological advances in one industry will move at the same pace as another completely unrelated field. The company should do a study of production cost trends within their own field in order to draw more appropriate conclusions.
The annual report relies on additional assumptions that are plainly inaccurate. Even if the report had presented evidence of production cost reduction within their own field, it would behoove them to use contemporary situations. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions form equating cost trends from 45 years ago with present day. Many factors could differ between these two time periods arising from economic climate, technological progress, etc.
Finally, the report also assumes that the only factor affecting production cost is how experienced or deft the company employees are at carrying out their tasks. First, the report applies this logic to the cited case of the film company in 1970 and then it is used to draw the conclusion that Olympic Food's 25 years of experience will result in cost reduction. Many factors can affect production cost such as process streamlining, new technologies, cheaper labor, outsourcing, etc.
In conclusion, the report presented by Olympic Food to its shareholders suffers from a variety of logical fallacies. For this reason, it fails to make a convincing argument about their predicted cost reductions and profit increases.
Thanks again!
I just wrote my first AWA essay and would really appreciate any feedback you might have for me.
Here is the prompt:
Here is my essay assessing how well reasoned this argument is: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.
The argument presented by Olympic Food's annual report is flawed for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the argument rests on the mistaken assumption that one can compare processing costs in food processing to those in film processing, which renders its main conclusion that Olympic Foods years of experience will result in cost minimization, invalid.
The annual report's first mistake is to equate the production costs of two very different industries. The report presents the production cost decrease in color film production from 50 cents in 1970 to 20 cents in 1984 as evidence to then conclude that their own costs will follow the same trend. Film production and food production use very different skills, machinery, etc. and therefore carry different costs. Furthermore, one cannot assume that the technological advances in one industry will move at the same pace as another completely unrelated field. The company should do a study of production cost trends within their own field in order to draw more appropriate conclusions.
The annual report relies on additional assumptions that are plainly inaccurate. Even if the report had presented evidence of production cost reduction within their own field, it would behoove them to use contemporary situations. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions form equating cost trends from 45 years ago with present day. Many factors could differ between these two time periods arising from economic climate, technological progress, etc.
Finally, the report also assumes that the only factor affecting production cost is how experienced or deft the company employees are at carrying out their tasks. First, the report applies this logic to the cited case of the film company in 1970 and then it is used to draw the conclusion that Olympic Food's 25 years of experience will result in cost reduction. Many factors can affect production cost such as process streamlining, new technologies, cheaper labor, outsourcing, etc.
In conclusion, the report presented by Olympic Food to its shareholders suffers from a variety of logical fallacies. For this reason, it fails to make a convincing argument about their predicted cost reductions and profit increases.
Thanks again!
