"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 states that over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. It omits some very important considerations that are necessary to get a full 360-degree view of the described scenario. The argument does not provide substantive evidence necessary to be able to prove or even support the main conclusion from the given premises.
First, the argument readily assumes that the costs of processing goes down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. This statement is weak as the author readily assumes that the increasing efficiency of a company with time directly affects the costs of processing. Clearly, there could be many other reason for the decrease in the cost of processing. The increasing efficiency may have some impact on the costs but it may not be the sole reason. For example, the cost of processing may decrease with improvement in the economy. If the economy of a country improves, the inflation decreases, prices of products fall and these improvements may help the cost of processing to go down.
Second, the author gives the example of color processing where 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 author could have elaboratively explained his claim. He then claims that the same principle applies to the processing of food. This is again a weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between color processing and food processing. It may be possible that the same principle does not apply to the processing of foods. There are several gaps that needed to be filled by the author by providing substantial evidences,proofs and relationships between the different types of processing. Otherwise it is not at all clear how the processing of food follows the same principle as the processing of color films.
Finally, the author says that since Olympic foods will celebrate its 25th birthday, it can be expected that the company can minimize costs and thus maximize profits. What if, in spite of being in the business for 25 years, the cost of processing of Olympic foods is increasing? What if the demand of the consumers is having an impact on the cost in the negative way? What if the company still follows the old traditional methods for processing food? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is extremely flawed because of the above mentioned reasons and hence comes across as weak and unconvincing to the reader. If the author had mentioned all the relevant facts that are essential to objectively assess the situation under consideration, the argument would have been much stronger. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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 states that over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. It omits some very important considerations that are necessary to get a full 360-degree view of the described scenario. The argument does not provide substantive evidence necessary to be able to prove or even support the main conclusion from the given premises.
First, the argument readily assumes that the costs of processing goes down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. This statement is weak as the author readily assumes that the increasing efficiency of a company with time directly affects the costs of processing. Clearly, there could be many other reason for the decrease in the cost of processing. The increasing efficiency may have some impact on the costs but it may not be the sole reason. For example, the cost of processing may decrease with improvement in the economy. If the economy of a country improves, the inflation decreases, prices of products fall and these improvements may help the cost of processing to go down.
Second, the author gives the example of color processing where 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 author could have elaboratively explained his claim. He then claims that the same principle applies to the processing of food. This is again a weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between color processing and food processing. It may be possible that the same principle does not apply to the processing of foods. There are several gaps that needed to be filled by the author by providing substantial evidences,proofs and relationships between the different types of processing. Otherwise it is not at all clear how the processing of food follows the same principle as the processing of color films.
Finally, the author says that since Olympic foods will celebrate its 25th birthday, it can be expected that the company can minimize costs and thus maximize profits. What if, in spite of being in the business for 25 years, the cost of processing of Olympic foods is increasing? What if the demand of the consumers is having an impact on the cost in the negative way? What if the company still follows the old traditional methods for processing food? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is extremely flawed because of the above mentioned reasons and hence comes across as weak and unconvincing to the reader. If the author had mentioned all the relevant facts that are essential to objectively assess the situation under consideration, the argument would have been much stronger. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
