--- In this argument, the arguer concludes that the long experience of Olympic Food make it almost definitely for Olympic Food to minimize costs and thus maximize profits. To support this conclusion, the arguer makes an anology between color film processing industry and the food processing industry. In addition, the arguer points out that the same principle also applies to the processing of food and thus draws the conclusion above.
At first glance, the arguer's argument appears to be some what convincing and exciting, but further reflection reveals that some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.
In the first place, the anology in the argument seems to be justified. however, this anology alone does not necessary suggest that something happend in a industry will also happen in another industry. To substantiate the argument, the arguer need to make a comparison between both industries and especially drill deep down about the similarity between these two industries.
In the second place, the arguer mentioned that the long experience Olympic Foods got in its development will also enable it to get more profits by minimizing costs. One should be cautious to draw such a conclusion because there is no necessary relationship between a company's history and its ability to maximize profits. Everyday we may know from new paper, TV program and some other mediaries that lot of companies are losing their profit margin although they have long history in their industries, and that numerious companies are becoming more and more profitable nevertheless they are new entrant in their industries.
In coclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification for the argument. As it stand, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument iin favor of the conclusion. To better assess the argument, we need additional detailed information, such as to what extent the similarities between film processing and food processing industries are.
|