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
In the argument, author is stating a correlation between increased efficiency, costs of processing and profit. This can be true in some scenarios, but this is not always true and lot of other factors can play a crucial role. Argument is based upon sole example of color film industry, where costs decreased with time because of increase in efficiency. It is stated that Olympic Foods will be able soon minimize its costs and hence, maximize its profits over time as it happened in film industry.
First of all, food business is very different from film processing business, author can not directly compare these two without taking into consideration other factors, which I will discuss in the following paragraphs. Overall processing cost is only one component which decides the profits, there are other components like cost of raw material, labor etc. which play a crucial role and can have negative effects on it.
According to the argument, there was huge decrease in costs for 3-by-5 print from 1970 to 1984, which seems to be a sound premise to come to conclusion that same will happen for Olympic foods. But, new technology could be the reason, not the experience. In 1970, may be 90% of the total expenditure was because of labor charges and now in 1984 it is drastically reduced, hence, the stated reduction. If this is the factor, then same innovation can not help Olympic food. These two are different scenarios and have completely different requirements, processes and customers.
It may be true that because of experience, total wastage during the film processing is drastically reduced, but food processing industry employees different processes and methods, which may or may not help both the industries. Nowadays, people are becoming more aware of their health and are avoiding outside junk food, this can force them to spend more money on promotional campaigns or making their products look more healthy and nutritious, which will decrease overall profits.
Other factors like increase in cost of labor, machinery, raw material and electricity could affect the profits over time. All these factors should also be taken into account when calculating it, which is not solely dependent upon processing costs. Tourism is increasing over time, hence demands for film, which may have helped it streamline its processes and take advantage of scale to reduce its costs, whereas for food industry, people are propagandizing negative effects of outside food, which will be very bad for it and its net sales may decrease over time.
Market competition can also have detrimental effects on profits, It can force businesses to reduce their selling price, affecting their overall profits, hence relating it solely to experience will not work for the Olympic foods. It could be able to reduce its total costs of processing but some exigency can always foul play. Therefore, multitude of factors ranging from increased cost of labor, electricity, input material, building etc. can affect total margins. Hence, it can be concluded based upon the analysis and various reasons stated above that reduction in processing cost does not guarantee increased profits and the argument stated fails to provide a sound reason to come to a conclusion and its better to compare two businesses of same type instead of comparing apples with oranges.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 331, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'streamlines'?
Suggestion: streamlines
...ands for film, which may have helped it streamline its processes and take advantage of sca...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'whereas', 'as for', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.255354200988 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.163097199341 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0840197693575 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0494233937397 0.0520304965353 95% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0411861614498 0.0272364105082 151% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.103789126853 0.125424944231 83% => OK
Participles: 0.0461285008237 0.0416121511921 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.64600062724 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0230642504119 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.00329489291598 0.001811407834 182% => OK
Determiners: 0.0543657331137 0.113004496875 48% => Some determiners wanted.
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0444810543657 0.0255425247493 174% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0181219110379 0.0127820249294 142% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3343.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 543.0 446.07635468 122% => OK
Chars per words: 6.15653775322 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.366482504604 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.294659300184 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204419889503 0.208842608468 98% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14364640884 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64600062724 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 207.018472906 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471454880295 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 55.8249834438 52.1807786196 107% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 24.6818181818 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.1439346804 57.7814097925 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.954545455 141.986410481 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6818181818 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.590909090909 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 54.1477482002 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.5974025974 1.8405768891 87% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.301729349567 0.441005458295 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0746603126648 0.135418324435 55% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0522439035472 0.0829849096947 63% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.498745631795 0.58762219726 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.153098177331 0.147661913831 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111121343168 0.193483328276 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0736369134995 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.276318841384 0.42659136922 65% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.030108533885 0.0774707102158 39% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195823863456 0.312017818177 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514653424999 0.0698173142475 74% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.