1. The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods.“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 centsfor one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrateits twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use ofevidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and whatalternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence wouldstrengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, wouldhelp you better evaluate its conclusion.
In this argument, the author claims that by applying the same principle as the processing of food, Olympic Foods can minimize costs and thus maximize profits. To support his conclusion, the author points out that 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.,and the same principle applies to foods processing,too. In addition ,the author reasons that the film processing can represent all the processing industries. Furthermore, he also assume that minimize costs can make more profits. This argument is problematic for a couple of reasons.First, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that the food processing is the same as the film processing. However, the similarities between food processing and film processing are less than differences between them. For example, films don't have strict guarantee period as foods do. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that the food processing can make the same achievement as film processing do.Second, the argument suffers from a fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that the costs of films processing go down meaning that the costs of all processing go down is not a sound evidence to draw the conclusion that the costs of foods processing will go down. For instance, the foods processing needs more labors than films processing. Thus, there is no guarantee of Olympic Foods can minimize costs and thus maximize profits.Last but not least, the author also commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that reducing costs is all that is required for increasing the profits. While admittedly, reducing costs is an important elements of increasing profits, it is hardly the only one, for there are lots of parts making up the total costs. So, it is impossible to conclude that minimizing costs will lead to the max profits.In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that the films processing has many similarities with foods processing, and the films processing is not the typical fo all the processing industries. Moreover, to better access the argument, we still need more information concerning the facts of increase profits.-- by 会员 白菜白菜 (2012/4/3 15:48:44)
一看就知道你全按照魔板写的，还问对不对？
-- by 会员 jannyguo (2012/4/3 20:50:38)
那逻辑错误找的对不对也是个问题啊~按模版写行不行