In this argument, the author concludes that long experience will make Olympic Foods minimize costs and maximize profits. To support his conclusion, the author points out that Olympic Foods has been operated for 25 years. In addition, the author reasons that the costs of processing can decrease. Furthermore, he also assumes that food industry and color-film industry have the same principle. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We don’t have to look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.
In the first place, this argument rests on a casual oversimplification that as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient; the costs of processing can go down. This assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The author fails to take into account other facts that contribute to the cost decline. It is likely that material necessary fir the process decrease the price instead of organizations become more efficient lead to low price. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
In the second place, the argument has also committed a false analogy fallacy; the argument rests on the assumption that the facts down from the color-film processing industry are applicable to the food processing industry. For example, problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect the food industry but are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. So, differences between food-processing industry and color-film processing industry clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid.
In the third place, the author’s forecast of minimal costs and maximum profits rests on the gratuitous assumption that Olympic Foods “long experience” has taught it how to do things better. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Just as likely, Olympic Foods has learned nothing from its 25 years in the food-processing business. Lacking this assumption, the expectation of increased efficiency is entirely unfounded.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis doesn’t lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing about minimal costs and maximum profits in future, the arguer would have to provide more information that the company has learned how to do things better as a result of its 25 years of experience. Supporting examples drawn from industries more similar to the food-processing industry would further substantiate the author’s view.
In the first place, this argument rests on a casual oversimplification that as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient; the costs of processing can go down. This assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The author fails to take into account other facts that contribute to the cost decline. It is likely that material necessary fir the process decrease the price instead of organizations become more efficient lead to low price. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
In the second place, the argument has also committed a false analogy fallacy; the argument rests on the assumption that the facts down from the color-film processing industry are applicable to the food processing industry. For example, problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect the food industry but are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. So, differences between food-processing industry and color-film processing industry clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid.
In the third place, the author’s forecast of minimal costs and maximum profits rests on the gratuitous assumption that Olympic Foods “long experience” has taught it how to do things better. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Just as likely, Olympic Foods has learned nothing from its 25 years in the food-processing business. Lacking this assumption, the expectation of increased efficiency is entirely unfounded.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis doesn’t lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing about minimal costs and maximum profits in future, the arguer would have to provide more information that the company has learned how to do things better as a result of its 25 years of experience. Supporting examples drawn from industries more similar to the food-processing industry would further substantiate the author’s view.


