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.”

下面摘自一家冷凍食品處理商（processor）奧林匹克食品提交給股東的年報(bào)：隨著時(shí)間流逝，由于機(jī)構(gòu)了解了做好事情的方法進(jìn)而提高了效率，處理的成本會(huì)降低。比如在彩色膠卷處理方面，3/5英寸照片的成本從1970年的5天50cent降至1984年的1天20cent。同樣的規(guī)律適用于食品處理方面。由于奧林匹克食品即將慶祝它的25歲生日，我們可以指望我們長期的經(jīng)驗(yàn)會(huì)使我們達(dá)到小的成本和大的利潤。

1. false analogy: The food industry is not analogous to the color film industry.

2. causal oversimplification: Other factors that may contribute t to the cost decline of the printing cost should be considered and ruled out.

3. gratuitous assumption: The conclusion of the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that the company can minimize cost and maximize profit because the company has been conducted for 25 years.

1. 錯(cuò)誤類比：color film processing和processing of food不相同。problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation都只影響food 不影響film.

2. 同時(shí)，忽略他因。是否是因?yàn)榻M織更有效率才使COST下降的？很可能是material necessary for the process下降了價(jià)錢。所以，兩者更不同。

3. gratuitous assumption：二十五年不代表學(xué)到了很多。很可能什么都沒學(xué)到，或者技術(shù)已經(jīng)out of date.

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’ “l(fā)ong 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 不可抗拒的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證實(shí) the author’s view.

2. The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.

“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices (n. 外地辦事處) and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”

下面摘自APogee公司的商務(wù)部門的備忘錄：

當(dāng)Apogee將它所有的業(yè)務(wù)部門集中在一處時(shí)，它將有比現(xiàn)在更多的利潤。因此，Apogee應(yīng)該關(guān)閉它的駐外辦公室并從單一場所管理它的所有部門。這樣的話，集中會(huì)通過削減成本提高利潤，并幫助公司更好地對所有員工進(jìn)行監(jiān)督。

1. causal oversimplification: It is imprudent to conclude that the establishment of the field offices is the only reason explaining the decline of the profit.

2. all things are equal: The success of the centralization of the past does not guarantee the applicability in the future.

3. either-or-or choice: The author assumes that the centralization and the establishment of field offices are mutually exclusive alternatives, there is no middle ground between they two. In fact, we can have the field offices under centralized control.

In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.

First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.

Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帳本底線) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy 肥大的buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first.

In conclusion,