Argument Question stem flawed ?

[beat_gmat_09]

"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 twenty-fifth birthday, we can
expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits."

Is the price reduced here ?
In 1970 one paid 50 cents for 5 days, i.e. 10 cents per day.
In 1984 the price is 20 cents for 1 day, i.e. one has to pay 50x20 = 1 $ per 5 days.
The price is doubled instead of getting reduced, as the question stem claims, unless provided a discount on 5 days

Am i getting this correct ?

Any thoughts ?

[grockit_andrea]

When the stem refers to color film processing, it means taking film to a photo developer and having it developed into color prints. According to the statement here, in 1970 it would take 5 days for your film to be returned: you would take it in on Monday, and your prints wouldn't be ready until Friday, for instance. In 1984, on the other hand, if you took your film in on Monday, prints would be ready for you to pick up on Tuesday. In addition to service being quicker, the cost also fell from $.50 in 1970 to $.20 in 1984. The process of color film processing became more efficient, allowing the processors to create prints more quickly, and also allowing for a decrease in the price of those prints. The argument is flawed, as all argument prompts are, but not in the way you're suggesting.
I hope that I understood your question correctly and that this clarifies the issue!