Essay Review , Five days to go ..

This is my first attempt at the AWA, i have 5 days to go before my test and will be working to further polish my essay writing skills.

"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 author claims that, as the cost of processing goes down over time because organizations learn to do things better, they become more efficient and cites the example of the film processing industry to claim that Olympic foods can maximize profits because it has been in business for almost 25 years. Stated this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and is unconvincing.

First, the argument cites an example from the film processing industry without drawing any parallel between it and the food processing industry. It is true that the cost of film processing had fallen between 1970 and 1984, however that probably had a lot to do with the sheer increase in the volume of cameras sold in that period coupled with the great advances made in the photo paper industry. The large number of people using cameras coupled with the decrease in the cost of producing photo paper probably lead to the fall in the price of processing photos due to economies of scale. The author does not cite any evidence suggesting a huge impending increase in food demand, in the absence of which this comparison is illogical at best.

Second, the underlying dynamics at play in the food processing industry are much different from those of the film processing industry. The food processing industry has to rely on perishable food products as its main "raw material" which can be marred by uncertain climatic patterns, loss of crop due to pests etc: things which can cause the price of the final product to fluctuate regularly. The film processing industry on the other hand relies on film paper, the production of which can be controlled with a high degree of certainty.

Finally, the executive illogically equates lowered cost of production with higher profits. While it is true that in most cases a lowered cost of production increases the profit margin, however the final sale price depends on a host of other factors and is in many cases independent of the cost of production. Competition for example can put tremendous pricing pressure on a particular product eating away at the profit margins. The argument may have been more logical if the executive would have cited some clear examples of the competition that Olympic foods faces in the food processing industry.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned facts and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author cited examples from the food processing industry or substantiated his claims with more evidence.

When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore,the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all
employees.

The author argues that because the Apogee Company was more profitable when it had all its operations in one location, it should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. He goes on to say that such a move would improve profitability by cutting costs and by helping the company maintain better supervision of all its employees. Stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated.

First, the author wrongly assumes that because the Apogee Company was once profitable while operating in a centralized fashion, the same model would still be valid today. Such a claim without any supporting evidence is a farfetched. The author fails to mention whether there has been any change in the industry between the two periods being discussed. The author also fails to mention the reasons that lead to the Apogee Company changing its business practices and becoming less centralized. It could well be the case that the Apogee Company was responding to its customer demand when it decided to open field offices In which case reverting back to a centralized model may well hurt the profitability of the company. The author also fails to evaluate other parameters that may help to establish the validity of the argument. He fails to compare the nature of the industry, the quality of competition, the customer demand etc. between the two time periods.

Second, the author states without providing any corroborating evidence that reverting back to the centralized form of operations would cut costs. He fails to mention the costs associated with making such sweeping changes in operations and does not factor in the possibility that many employees of the Apogee Company may not wish to work away from their current locations. Hiring and training new workers may be cost prohibitive and must be factored in when contemplating changes in the operating practices.

Finally, the author assumes that the only way to maintain better supervision of the employees is through centralization. He fails to take into account other means which could allow the Apogee Company to better supervise its employees. He also fails to mention whether lack of supervision is one of the pressing concerns for Apogee Company. The author's argument could have been much more logical if he could have shown that the Apogee Company was having serious issues with employee supervision, and that those issues could be best solved by reverting the company's operations to a more centralized theme.

In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions and therefore is illogical. If the author truly wishes to change the mind of the readers on the issue, he would have to restructure the argument, explicate his assumptions, fix flaws in his logic, and provide evidentiary support.

This topic has expert replies