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 twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits
Citing facts drawn from the color-film processing industry that indicate a downward trend in the costs of film processing over a 24-year period, the author argues that Olympic Foods will likewise be able to minimize costs and thus maximize profits in the future. In support of this conclusion the author cites the general principle that “as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient.” This principle, coupled with the fact that Olympic Foods has had 25 years of experience in the food processing industry leads to the author’s rosy prediction. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from two critical flaws.
First, 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.
Second, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from the color-film processing industry are applicable to the food processing industry. Differences between the two industries clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect the food industry but are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. Problems such as these might present insurmountable obstacles that prevent lowering food-processing costs in the future.
As it stands the author’s argument is not compelling. To strengthen the conclusion that Olympic Foods will enjoy minimal costs and maximum profits in the future, the author would have to provide evidence 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.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
also need to argue:
our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 325 350
No. of Characters: 1754 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.246 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.397 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.932 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.312 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.282 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.035 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, likewise, second, then, thus, for example, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1848.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 325.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.68615384615 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21276153587 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529230769231 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 78.8056399561 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.2 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86666666667 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.206944430135 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686406094895 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05734051082 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138081179904 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476421259682 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.