just for me

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.

The memo that is issued is to the stockholders of the olympic foods, hence it would be safe to assume that all of them have a good understanding of the olympic foods. Based on this presumption, the argument takes its merit from anotehr industry.
This line of reasoning is weak in its roots. The companyt would have done well to put in an example with corelation to a topic in its own industry. Moreover the analogy drawn between the color film processing and the food industry may not be accurate. Another line of reasoning used in the argument that falls short is to rely on the fact about falling print prices over time. The fall in prices does not necesarily mean the reduction in costs, it very well may turn out to be that the external factors-raw materials and labour-forced these price changes. thus the weakness of the argument to rely on an unrelated topic comes to the forefront.
The argument would have been better if the subject of positives was more directed towards ths oragnisation itself. For instance the argument should have stressed on how it has learnt to do things better, and how it has been more efficient, than to generalise the argument to all the industries.The shareholders are more interested in the process of improvement of their own organisation and the performance of its own products.
The memo should have focussed more on its upswings, and quoted the succes of any of its products to indicate the change in market. Since the main aim of the memo is to highlight the 25 year of the company, which the above argument overlooks, it would have been better if the argument had some points highlighting the bright points its salient past.