Hi All/Experts,
Request you to rate my essay. Any inputs would be great. Thanks in anticipation.
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."
---------------------------My Response---------------------------------------
The argument presented states that with the increase in experience of an organization or industry in a field, the organization or industry becomes more efficient. The argument in it's presented form is seriouly flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument states that over time an organization is bound to learn to do things better than it previously did. This statement readily assumes that the organization has sufficient scope of improvement in its existing processes and is not at a level of saturation of its efficiency. Also, the statement assumes that if there is scope of improvement in efficiency, over time the organization will find ways and processes to make changes and become more efficient.
Secondly, the argument presents an example of color film processing industry where the cost supposedly decreased over a period of time. The example is used in a context to support argument that over time as cost decreased it must be due to the industry becoming more efficient. This is a seriously flawed assumption as there might be other reasons such as decrease in film costs, decrease in labor costs, etc. which may have a substantial effect on lowering the cost of processing a color film.
Thirdly, the argument extends its conclusion to the food processing industry. This extension of the conclusion is ill-concieved and open to attacks of reasoning. The argument draws a parallel between the color processing industry and food processing industry by assuming that factors effecting one industry type would also effect the other industry type. Moreover, the argument provides no examples or proofs where the extension of the above conclusion is valid across industries. Additionally, it is stated as the organization will celeberate its 25th birthday, the organization will minimize costs and thus maximize profits. It assumes that minimizing costs is directly related to maximizing profits and there are no other factors like effects of decreasing customer base, other competetive organizations, etc. which may impact sales which in turn may impact overall profits.
In conclusion, the argument in its current form is seriously flawed, irrational, and unconvincing. The argument is based on assumptions with no facts or examples cited to support itself. If the author would have provided concrete evidence to support his argument, it would have been much more defensible.
Request you to rate my essay. Any inputs would be great. Thanks in anticipation.
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."
---------------------------My Response---------------------------------------
The argument presented states that with the increase in experience of an organization or industry in a field, the organization or industry becomes more efficient. The argument in it's presented form is seriouly flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument states that over time an organization is bound to learn to do things better than it previously did. This statement readily assumes that the organization has sufficient scope of improvement in its existing processes and is not at a level of saturation of its efficiency. Also, the statement assumes that if there is scope of improvement in efficiency, over time the organization will find ways and processes to make changes and become more efficient.
Secondly, the argument presents an example of color film processing industry where the cost supposedly decreased over a period of time. The example is used in a context to support argument that over time as cost decreased it must be due to the industry becoming more efficient. This is a seriously flawed assumption as there might be other reasons such as decrease in film costs, decrease in labor costs, etc. which may have a substantial effect on lowering the cost of processing a color film.
Thirdly, the argument extends its conclusion to the food processing industry. This extension of the conclusion is ill-concieved and open to attacks of reasoning. The argument draws a parallel between the color processing industry and food processing industry by assuming that factors effecting one industry type would also effect the other industry type. Moreover, the argument provides no examples or proofs where the extension of the above conclusion is valid across industries. Additionally, it is stated as the organization will celeberate its 25th birthday, the organization will minimize costs and thus maximize profits. It assumes that minimizing costs is directly related to maximizing profits and there are no other factors like effects of decreasing customer base, other competetive organizations, etc. which may impact sales which in turn may impact overall profits.
In conclusion, the argument in its current form is seriously flawed, irrational, and unconvincing. The argument is based on assumptions with no facts or examples cited to support itself. If the author would have provided concrete evidence to support his argument, it would have been much more defensible.
