Hello Arti/Erin,
I would be thankful if you could give some comments for my version of the topic.
The arguement concludes that long experience of Olympic Foods in processing food will reduce their costs and will maximize their profits. The argument basis such a conclusion on the premises that with time the organizations learn how to do things better and so they become more efficient. The arguer takes and an example of 'Color film processing' to prove his point. Such a conclusion is not convincing unless it is substantiated with a few evidences.
Firstly, the arguer generalizes his claim giving an example of 'Color film processing'. Some industries may not behave the same way as a 'Color film processing'. It is possible that 'Color film processing' had increased profits since there were no new developments in technique of color film processing. The argument can be sustantiated if similar trends are shown in 'Food Processing' industry.
Secondly, the arguer relates more efficiency with less cost of production. Efficiency may not be related to cost of processing at all. Infact better efficiency may be due to use of better (costly) resources and thus increasing the cost of production.
Finally, the arguer does not mention anything about the increasing competitions in an industry among various organizations. With time the competition increases and so, to make profit, organizations have to decrease the cost of processing. And in such a case long experience will not help Olympic Foods to maximize profits.
In conclusion, the argument can be strengthened if the conclusion is supported with the assumptions/evidences as stated above.
thanks
Monty
