In 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.