The writer of this report has attempted to persuade stockholders that the companys experiences

will help to cut the expenses and, thus, increase the profits. However, the reason and example
provided have failed to serve this purpose, as they are tricky and do not specify to the very case
of a food-processing company.
The argument starts by stating a general fact about decreasing processing costs, assigning its
cause to organizations knowledge of better performance. This premise is quite vague for the
latter purpose of the report because it goes with organizations and efficient, which are two
terms of much wider extents than those of company and minimize costs, the issues in
concern. It is worth noticing that organizations may include many other forms of entities
beside company; and, efficient does not comprise only minimize costs. Hence, it is quite
unreasonable for the writer to later claim the similarity between this fact and the situation of the
company. This is not to mention that he does not clarify the definition of the term efficient,
just loosely reasoning that efficient is equivalent to do things better, which is too general for
any explanation.
The example provided is even more irrelevant. It claims that 50 cents for five-day service is
higher than 20 cents for one-day service, while a simple recalculation of same basis can easily
point out the misleading. Even if one does not pay attention to this detail, he will also find this
example unconvincing, as film processing has little to do with food processing. The report may
become more well-grounded if the writer can provide actual figures in food processing industry
instead.
Last but not least, the reporter assumes that 25 years within food processing industry is
considered long enough to be experienced and that such an experienced company will certainly
be able to learn to do things efficiently. There are two flaws with this assumption. First of all, the
writer supplies readers with no information about time span of companies in food processing
field, leaving readers unable to judge whether 25 years can be alleged to be experienced enough.
Secondly, there is no support for the belief that long time functioning can guarantee the learning
of efficient performance, as the writer just jumps straight into the conclusion without further
explaining anything about this assumption.
The extract of annual report is intended to persuade stockholders about the prospect of the
company. Nevertheless, it has failed to achieve its goal due to loosely organized argument and
lack of supportive examples. A more narrowed down reasoning and relevant figures will help to
better the writing.