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 fo

The author argues that the costs of processing go down because organizations have learned to do things better over time, and become more efficient. Therefore, a company named Olympic Foods is expected to minimize costs and maximize profits since it’s about to celebrate its 25th birthday. The argument is not well reasoned since it is based on a questionable assumption, fails to consider alternative explanations and uses an awkward analogy of color film to processed food.

First, the author assumes that through the accumulation of time, a company is supposed to acquire valuable experience that optimizes its processing procedure and reduces the costs of processing. However, the long history of an organization is not the absolute indicator of its success in cost reduction. Some start-up companies have made themselves more competitive and efficient than long-established corporations because of more flexible managerial methods and open-mined attitude toward new technology, which leads to higher efficiency.

Second, in addition to the experience brought about over time, the author has failed to consider other reasons that may decrease the costs of processing. For example, the lower costs on raw materials and human resources can both result in the reduced costs of manufacturing. Therefore, the author should take other factors that could influence costs and profits into account instead of focusing on one single reason.

In addition, it’s awkward to compare the example of color-film industry in cost reduction to that of processed food industry. Color-film industry may rely more on new technology to produce significant profit gains, while processed food industry, since its technology is quite mature already, could depend more on the low prices of raw materials. Thus, comparing two different industries to reach a shared conclusion makes the argument less convincing.

In conclusion, though the argument may seem reasonable at the first glance, it actually contains many reasoning errors. If the author managed to avoid the flaws mentioned above, the argument could have been more persuasive and effective.