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
Author is making an argument that with time, processing cost decreases as efficiency increases. This can be true in some scenarios, but this is not always true and lot of other factors can play a crucial role. Author has stated example of a film processing industry to support his claim. He claimed that the Olympic Foods will be able soon cut its costs and maximize its profits over time.
Food business and the film processing business are completely different to equate. Author can not compare these two without taking into consideration other factors mentioned below. Processing cost accompanied with cost of raw material, labor etc. decides the profitability.
For 3-by-5 print decrease could be because of new technology, not the experience. Labor required could have decreased because of innovation which reduced the costs of processing. 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.
Experience gained could have reduced total wastage during the film processing. Food processing industry employees different processes which are different from film industry. Nowadays, people are becoming more aware of their health and are avoiding outside junk food. This can force food industry to spend more money on promotional campaigns to make their products look more healthy and nutritious, which will decrease profits.
Profits could also reduced by increase in cost of labor, machinery, raw material and electricity over time. Profit is not only dependent upon processing costs. Demands for film because of tourism could have helped film processing streamline its processes and take advantage of scale to reduce its costs. Whereas for the food industry, people are propagandizing negative effects of outside food, which will be bad for it and its net sales may decrease over time.
Market competition also effects profits, it can force businesses to reduce their selling price affecting their profits. Thus, relating it 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. Thus, multitude of factors mentioned above play extremely crucial role and can affect total margins. So, it can be concluded based upon the analysis and various reasons stated above that reduction in processing cost does not guarantee increased profits. The argument stated fails to provide a sound reason to come to a conclusion and its better to compare two businesses of same type.
- Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways. 66
- Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways. 50
- People benefit more from traveling in their own country than from traveling to foreign countries 76
- Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they becomemore efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-dayservice in 1970 to 20 cents 50
- People benefit more from traveling in their own country than from traveling to foreign countries. 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'reduce'
Suggestion: reduce
...decrease profits. Profits could also reduced by increase in cost of labor, machinery...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'whereas', 'as for']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.283813747228 0.25644967241 111% => OK
Verbs: 0.177383592018 0.15541462614 114% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0820399113082 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0465631929047 0.0520304965353 89% => OK
Pronouns: 0.039911308204 0.0272364105082 147% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.09977827051 0.125424944231 80% => OK
Participles: 0.059866962306 0.0416121511921 144% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67196336334 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0266075388027 0.026700313972 100% => OK
Particles: 0.00221729490022 0.001811407834 122% => OK
Determiners: 0.0554323725055 0.113004496875 49% => Some determiners wanted.
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0443458980044 0.0255425247493 174% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00886917960089 0.0127820249294 69% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2591.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 409.0 446.07635468 92% => OK
Chars per words: 6.33496332518 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.39119804401 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.315403422983 0.287650121315 110% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.222493887531 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.158924205379 0.135150697306 118% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67196336334 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498777506112 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 54.9431344498 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.7307692308 23.2022227129 68% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.3569117925 57.7814097925 54% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6538461538 141.986410481 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7307692308 23.2022227129 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.384615384615 0.724660767414 53% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 47.2711115291 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.68067226891 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304035346758 0.441005458295 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0737557068776 0.135418324435 54% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0622742309786 0.0829849096947 75% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.443719918321 0.58762219726 76% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0966506111184 0.147661913831 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103014422733 0.193483328276 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622135819265 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.258478288594 0.42659136922 61% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0276584049919 0.0774707102158 36% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190867656643 0.312017818177 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0496263429563 0.0698173142475 71% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => 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.