The given argument is a part of an annual report sent to it's share holders by a frozen food processing company- Olympic foods. The argument claims that the company is going to maximize its profits due to the long experience it has. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and false analogy. The argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on an assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the processing costs would go down solely due to their long experience. This statement is a stretch of the fact that experience enhances efficiency. For example, it can be said that some one who is in a particular industry for a longer period of time, makes fewer amount of mistakes. Clearly, the argument ignores the reasons of why the processing costs are high in the first place. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the ways they intend to reduce the costs or any unnecessary expenses that can now be reduced.
Second the author commits fallacy of false analogy. The two industries are completely different from each other though they both process something. The colour film processing industry is about printing technology and film rolls. It's possible that they can reduce the costs due to the sophisticated technology . The food processing industries depends on many other factors. The raw material, the machines, the storage, etc. The market and sales of both the industries are completely different. If the author had provided evidence that there are some similar factors in both the industries that could be used to reduce the food processing costs, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument does not show any explanation to why the company should perform any better after its 25th anniversary. After all, there is no guarantee that the company will only become better due to it's long experience. Infact many old companies have now ceased to exist because they could not update themselves in competition with the new companies. The argument als directly assumes that lower processing costs would mean higher profits. This is quite illogical as it does not considers any negative impacts that might be caused. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been more convincing if the relavent facts and evidences were mentioned. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors, which are absent in this argument. Without the information, the argument remains unsubstantial, flawed and open to debate.