The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods
-
June 2, 2019 at 11:26 pm
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.
In this argument, the author concludes that increasing efficiency accounts for the decrease in Olympic Foods’ cost of processing. To support this argument, the author gives an example of price changing overtime: in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print was 50 cents for 5-day service while in 1984 it was 20 cents for one-day service. Moreover, the author contend that the same situation applies to the processing of food. In the end, the author speculate a further decrease in cost and with a long experience of processing, cost will be minimized and profits will be maximized.
At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat appealing, however, close scrutiny reveals that the author’s reasoning is problematic because it rests on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence. The author attribute the decrease of print cost to the fact that organization knows how to do things better. However, the author lacks evidence to prove that since the decrease can be caused by technology innovation. Moreover, the author wrongly speculate that the same situation applies to the processing of food. This can be problematic since the processing of food differs greatly from that of print. Thirdly, it is no reason to expect a lasting decrease in price, so the minimize of cost will not be easy as the author imagined.
To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional evidence to demonstrate the relevance between cost and familarity of processing food.
June 8, 2019 at 1:32 amScore: 57.4
Suggestions for Improvement
- Shorten/split sentences exceeding 20 words;
- Convert passive sentences into their active counterparts.
Problems Highlight
In this argument, the author concludes that increasing efficiency accounts for the decrease in Olympic Foods’ cost of processing. [Verbose]To support this argument, the author gives an example of price changing overtime[Spelling error]: in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print was 50 cents for 5-day service while in 1984 it was 20 cents for one-day service. [Verbose]Moreover, the author contend[Grammatical Error] that the same situation applies to the processing of food. In the end, the author speculate [Grammatical Error]a further decrease in cost and with a long experience of processing, [article error]cost will be minimized[Passive] and profits will be maximized[Passive] .[Verbose]
At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat appealing,[Punctuation error] however, close scrutiny reveals that the author’s reasoning is problematic because it rests on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence. [Verbose]The author attribute the decrease of print cost to the fact that [Article error]organization knows how to do things better. However, the author lacks evidence to prove that since the decrease can be caused by[Passive] technology innovation. Moreover, the author wrongly speculate [Grammatical Error]that the same situation applies to the processing of food. This [Unclear reference]can be problematic since the processing of food differs greatly from that of print. Thirdly, it is no reason to expect a lasting decrease in price, so the minimize[Grammatical Error] of[article error] cost will not be easy as the author imagined.
To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional evidence to demonstrate the relevance between cost and familarity [Spelling error]of processing food.[Verbose]
Comment: There are more errors than those highlighted. Please revise and resubmit your essay for further reviewing and revision.
June 8, 2019 at 4:39 pmIn this argument, the author concludes that increasing efficiency accounts for the decrease in Olympic Foods’ cost of processing. To illustrate this, the author first gives numbers of price changing over time: in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print was 50 cents for 5-day service. But in 1984, it was 20 cents for one-day service. Then, the author contends that the same situation applies to the processing of food. In the end, the author speculates a further decrease in cost. Besides, with a better experience of processing, the corporate will minimize cost and maximize profits.
At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat appealing. However, close scrutiny reveals that the author’s reasoning is problematic. The reasoning rests on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence. The author attributes the decrease of print cost to better knowing how to produce a product. However, evidence to prove that technology innovation can cause decrease of cost lacks. Moreover, the author wrongly speculates that the same situation applies to the processing of food. This application can be problematic since the processing of food differs greatly from that of print. Thirdly, expecting a lasting decrease in price is not reliable, so the minimization of cost will not be easy as the author imagines.
To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional evidence to demonstrate the relevance between cost and familiarity of processing food.
June 10, 2019 at 4:38 pmScore: 59
Problems Highlight
In this argument, the author concludes that [article error]increasing efficiency [logical incompleteness]accounts for the decrease in Olympic Foods’ cost of processing. To illustrate this[unclear pronoun], the author first gives numbers of price changing over time: in 1970, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print was 50 cents for 5-day service. But in 1984, it was 20 cents for one-day service. Then, the author contends that the same situation applies to the processing of food. In the end, the author speculates a further decrease in cost. Besides, with a better experience of processing, the corporate[wrong word] will minimize cost and maximize profits.
At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat appealing. However, close scrutiny reveals that the author’s reasoning is problematic. The reasoning rests on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence. The author attributes the decrease of print cost to better knowing how to produce a product. However[Repetition], [Grammatical error]evidence to prove that technology innovation can cause [Article error]decrease of cost lacks. Moreover, the author wrongly speculates that the same situation applies to the processing of food. This application can be problematic since the processing of food differs greatly from that of print. Thirdly, [Dull coordinating adverb]expecting a lasting decrease in price is not reliable,[Poor connection between clauses] so the minimization of [Article error]cost will not be easy as the author imagines.
To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional evidence to demonstrate the relevance between cost and familiarity of processing food[Wrong word order].
Comment: There are more errors than those highlighted. Revise and resubmit your essay.
