-
[email protected]
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:45 am
"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 states that organizations learn to become more efficient over time and the example used to show this is color film process from 1970 to 1984. The author continues to state that Olympic Foods, in celebrating its 25th anniversary, will be the same as color fil processing and will maximize profits and minimize costs for future success. The author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. The author's statement alone is vague and lacks rationale and evidence - this by itself does not constitute an argument.
Firstly, can the author accurately compare two different industries in two different time frames to prove that his statement is true? What evidence is there that connects the comparison, are the costs of materials the same? Are the customers buying behaviours the same and will they continue to be? Is the demand for both products the same and will that hold true in the coming years? The author lacks proof and logic to accurately compare the two industries, based on the reasons above making it difficult to draw a comparison accurately to support the statement.
Secondly, the author states that because Olympic Foods is celebrating their 25th anniversary, and they have years of experience, that they can expect to minimize costs and maximize profits. The author does not provide any evidence of how the company is doing right now and if there are any places in which the company could become leaner in their production. Is the company already running at maximum efficiency and are costs already as low as they can go thus maximizing their profits? The author does not provide sufficient evidence of the current business and without that knowledge the argument is weak and vague.
Thirdly, the author does state that over time companies become more efficient and the benefit of that is running a company to be lean and maximize profits. That could be true and maybe for Olympic Foods that will be the case and continue to be for their future, however the author does not provide facts and numbers to prove this statement and you cannot make a clear argument for it.
Finally, the authors statement that because Olympic foods is celebrating 25 years and that is proof enough that they will minimize costs and maximize profits to become even more successful has many gaps that must be answered. The author omits evidence and logic to clearly draw a solid conclusion and if there were facts and proof to support the statement, the argument would have been much stronger.
The author states that organizations learn to become more efficient over time and the example used to show this is color film process from 1970 to 1984. The author continues to state that Olympic Foods, in celebrating its 25th anniversary, will be the same as color fil processing and will maximize profits and minimize costs for future success. The author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. The author's statement alone is vague and lacks rationale and evidence - this by itself does not constitute an argument.
Firstly, can the author accurately compare two different industries in two different time frames to prove that his statement is true? What evidence is there that connects the comparison, are the costs of materials the same? Are the customers buying behaviours the same and will they continue to be? Is the demand for both products the same and will that hold true in the coming years? The author lacks proof and logic to accurately compare the two industries, based on the reasons above making it difficult to draw a comparison accurately to support the statement.
Secondly, the author states that because Olympic Foods is celebrating their 25th anniversary, and they have years of experience, that they can expect to minimize costs and maximize profits. The author does not provide any evidence of how the company is doing right now and if there are any places in which the company could become leaner in their production. Is the company already running at maximum efficiency and are costs already as low as they can go thus maximizing their profits? The author does not provide sufficient evidence of the current business and without that knowledge the argument is weak and vague.
Thirdly, the author does state that over time companies become more efficient and the benefit of that is running a company to be lean and maximize profits. That could be true and maybe for Olympic Foods that will be the case and continue to be for their future, however the author does not provide facts and numbers to prove this statement and you cannot make a clear argument for it.
Finally, the authors statement that because Olympic foods is celebrating 25 years and that is proof enough that they will minimize costs and maximize profits to become even more successful has many gaps that must be answered. The author omits evidence and logic to clearly draw a solid conclusion and if there were facts and proof to support the statement, the argument would have been much stronger.
