ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 8153|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

AA001-请帮忙看一下,多谢

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-9-9 19:34:00 | 只看该作者

AA001-请帮忙看一下,多谢

********************


Date: 2005-9-8


Time: 18:15:09


Argument No.1


********************


Question:




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 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.~




Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.



********************



Your Answer:



In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that they can expect that their long experience will enable them to minimize costs and thus maximize profits. The basis for this recommendation is that over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. The author cites 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 1984as an example in support of this recommendation. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.



In the first place, the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. Although the costs of processing will go down since as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient, it does not thoroughly show that  the company could minimize costs and thus maximize profits.  Whether the profits will be maximize depends not only on the costs of processing, but also on other costs, such as raw material costs, new technology costs, and new equipment costs. The author's conclusion is not strongly supported by the reasons given.



In the second place, The evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. A mere positive correlation between the costs of color film processing and profits does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. Both common sence and our experience inform us that even the costs of color film processing go down, it does not mean that the color film company will maximize profits accordingly.   



In the third place, the argument rests on the assumption that frozen food processing is analogous to color film processing in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between frozen food processing and color film processing, there is much dissimilarity as well. For example, the costs of frozen food processing may depend mainly on the costs of raw materials, however, the costs of color film processing are mostly decided by the development of technology. Thus, it is likely much more difficult to compare the two different costs with their respective sequences.



In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification for his argument. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence to prove that long experience enable the company to minimize costs and thus maximize profits. To better assess the argument, we need additional detailed information about all the costs of frozen foods processing so that we can establish the conclusion whether long experience enable the company to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.


沙发
发表于 2005-9-9 23:20:00 | 只看该作者

AegeanSea2006,


摸板好像改得很少啊?

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-9-10 13:29:00 | 只看该作者
刚开始写,想先按照模板找找感觉
地板
发表于 2005-9-10 14:58:00 | 只看该作者
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2005-9-10 18:37:00 | 只看该作者
6#
发表于 2012-8-8 02:24:32 | 只看该作者
看了n多这第一题的各类人写得文章,很多人都跟楼主一样抓住minimize和maximize进行攻击,我觉得你们的理解跟我不同。minimize cost不等于reduce cost,maximize profits也不等于increase profit。也就是说argument的作者如果能够证明他们公司的experience能够提高效率,那么minimize cost和maximize profits就是成立的,就算其他原料涨,在人工方面价格还是降低了minimize了。可惜argument的漏洞就在于他无法证明公司的experience能够提高效率,因为谁说这25年来公司都用同一种技术process food?What if the company just installed a new production line this year?

还有一个问题是很多人都把color film processing当作是跟food processing的类比。个人不太同意。我觉得这个argument的思路是:作者首先提出一个principle(原理),该原理要证明experience和efficiency是相辅相成的。然后作者用colour film的历史数据作为例子进行论证这个principle的正确性。然后作者说“The principle applies to the processing of food."从这句话里可以看出,作者把这个principle套用到food processing上(而不是把colour film和food做类比)。最后作者提出结论说他们公司的经验能(提高效率,从而能)minimize cost。


我自己写的思路如下
1. 质疑principle的合理性,因为作者只用了一组colour film的历史数据进行论证,样本太少,没有说服力。
2. 质疑colour film的数据无法证明experience和efficiency的关系。题目中明确给出数据表明efficiency确实提高了(five-day service变成了one-day service),但是这种efficiency的提高是源于工人experience的提高嘛?说不定有新技术大大降低了整个process对人力的依赖呢?
3. 质疑Olympic Foods 25年来的经验对现在的process有用(如前面第一短所述)。


欢迎大家拍砖或分享思路~
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-22 10:19
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部