“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 logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.
The argument claims that Olympics Foods will be able to minimize costs and maximize profits because it has been in the business for 25 years. Stated in this way, the claim makes illogical conclusions, consists of poor reasoning, and fails to mention several key factors. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument assumes that standard for food processing the remained the same across 25 years. Clearly, as society moves forward, we have seen an increase in regulation and standards across the food industry. For example, what if the new standards set by the government require novel processes that are inefficient. While Olympic Foods may have become more efficient at their old processes, the new regulations will lead to longer times and higher costs that would reduce profits. The argument would be much clearer if the author provided information on how the processes used by Olympic Foods are still more of less the same as they were 25 years ago.
Second, the argument claims that there is a causal relationship between time and efficient, however, this could just be a correlation. A common underlying reason for this relationship is technological advances that lead to improved processes. If there have not been technological advances in the methods of processing food, then Olympic Foods will not be significantly more efficient than they were 25 years ago. If the argument provided evidence that Olympic Foods has successfully developed new more efficient methods to process good than the claim would hold more weight.
Finally, the argument draws a connection between increased efficiency and decreased costs. This conclusion is a stretch because improvements in efficiency require improved technology. What if the new technology equipment cost more to maintain and operating. This would increase the operating costs of Olympics Foods and therefore lead to decreased profits. Without more information on the cost structure of Olympic Foods, the conclusion of increased profits is more wishful thinking than a concrete outcome.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerably strengthened if the author provided more information regarding the methods and costs of food processing along with the trajectory of Olympic Food’s investments over the past 25 years. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-27 | navderm | 82 | view |
| 2019-09-07 | glaedr7274 | 63 | view |
| 2019-03-26 | HayHAHA | 68 | view |
| 2018-12-11 | gomoros | 66 | view |
| 2018-12-04 | Naga Goutam | 53 | view |
- “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 63
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee."We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rathe 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 2090 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.291 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.863 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.81 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.082 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 414, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... efficient than they were 25 years ago. If the argument provided evidence that Oly...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2160.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46835443038 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9582752416 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.481012658228 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 651.6 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.4386380422 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.857142857 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8095238095 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153738534986 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528977451761 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.035832134486 0.0701772020484 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0984895356016 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0171619699387 0.0628817314937 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.