Argument : "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."
Answer:
The argument stated above is flawed. The author takes the liberty to compare a color film processing firm to a food processing firm , using illogical assumptions to support the same
Every industry has its own technicalities and challenges. The manufacturing process in a tyre plant will be different from a PET bottle plant. The author believes that manufacturing plant life is directly proportional to the increase in efficiency for every industry. He forgets to account for the fact that a film processing plant might be technologically advanced compared to a food processing plant. .The dynamics governing both industries is totally different, hence the causality does not make sense.
The author is also comparing two events which happen to be in a totally different time zones. In 1970's the number of inventions were pretty high compared to the 2000's. It could also be possible that 1970's was the time when the government funded programs for innovation in film processing , hence leading to cheaper and better quality films. Hence, the comparison fails on the premise of different time-lines also.
The argument fails to mention as to why US Foods will be able to achieve such a feat specifically. A year on year growth estimate, market share or any specific data on the efficiency would help this argument to justify the same.
The argument is not convincing on many levels, as it fails to account for the fact that it compares two different industries in different time zones.
Answer:
The argument stated above is flawed. The author takes the liberty to compare a color film processing firm to a food processing firm , using illogical assumptions to support the same
Every industry has its own technicalities and challenges. The manufacturing process in a tyre plant will be different from a PET bottle plant. The author believes that manufacturing plant life is directly proportional to the increase in efficiency for every industry. He forgets to account for the fact that a film processing plant might be technologically advanced compared to a food processing plant. .The dynamics governing both industries is totally different, hence the causality does not make sense.
The author is also comparing two events which happen to be in a totally different time zones. In 1970's the number of inventions were pretty high compared to the 2000's. It could also be possible that 1970's was the time when the government funded programs for innovation in film processing , hence leading to cheaper and better quality films. Hence, the comparison fails on the premise of different time-lines also.
The argument fails to mention as to why US Foods will be able to achieve such a feat specifically. A year on year growth estimate, market share or any specific data on the efficiency would help this argument to justify the same.
The argument is not convincing on many levels, as it fails to account for the fact that it compares two different industries in different time zones.
