-
kashefian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You
can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
A vast variety of parameters would lead to increased efficiency and low production costs. These parameters would not necessarily affect different industries uniformly. A close investigation of the argument above shows that the author fails to address these differences in industries and to consider other factors which would affect processing costs.
The primary problem of the author's argument is that he claims all organizations, whether producing car parts or cosmetics, uniformly learn how to do things better and this sole reason will contribute to lower production costs. However, one would consider many other critical success factors in lowering production costs: Employee motivation, raw materials cost and organizational structure are a few other parameter to mention.
The second reason why the reader would evaluate the argument as invalid is that it assumes a particular cause of a specific effect in one industry would apply to other industries. However, this assumption would not be true especially when considering the color film processing in which technology improvements contribute to lower production costs. As a matter of fact, this rule would not uniformly apply to other industries such as food processing as the author assumes.
The author's argument is not totally without base. The author would improve his line of reasoning if he provides some evidence to support his unsubstantiated premises and assumptions. For example, he would provide evidence on the similarities of food processing industry processes with color film processing. Providing such evidence would strengthen author's argument significantly.
In sum, the author's line of reasoning is weak as he fails to provide adequate evidence on his premises and assumptions. His assumptions are unsubstantiated and his reasoning is flawed. Thus, without enhancing the argument with some supporting evidence, he would fail to convince many stockholders that the same efficiency will be realized in Olympic Foods processes.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You
can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
A vast variety of parameters would lead to increased efficiency and low production costs. These parameters would not necessarily affect different industries uniformly. A close investigation of the argument above shows that the author fails to address these differences in industries and to consider other factors which would affect processing costs.
The primary problem of the author's argument is that he claims all organizations, whether producing car parts or cosmetics, uniformly learn how to do things better and this sole reason will contribute to lower production costs. However, one would consider many other critical success factors in lowering production costs: Employee motivation, raw materials cost and organizational structure are a few other parameter to mention.
The second reason why the reader would evaluate the argument as invalid is that it assumes a particular cause of a specific effect in one industry would apply to other industries. However, this assumption would not be true especially when considering the color film processing in which technology improvements contribute to lower production costs. As a matter of fact, this rule would not uniformly apply to other industries such as food processing as the author assumes.
The author's argument is not totally without base. The author would improve his line of reasoning if he provides some evidence to support his unsubstantiated premises and assumptions. For example, he would provide evidence on the similarities of food processing industry processes with color film processing. Providing such evidence would strengthen author's argument significantly.
In sum, the author's line of reasoning is weak as he fails to provide adequate evidence on his premises and assumptions. His assumptions are unsubstantiated and his reasoning is flawed. Thus, without enhancing the argument with some supporting evidence, he would fail to convince many stockholders that the same efficiency will be realized in Olympic Foods processes.
