Analysis of issue questions

While in some countries there is little or no censorship at all for televisin and radio
programs, some other countries carefully censor offensive language and behavior. Even
when this latter practice of censorship aims at protecting the audience, specially children,
it may imply the loss of freedom of speech and humans right to communicate freely.
People in favor of heavy censorship argue that offensive language and behavior are a bad
influence for kids and sometimes even promotes violence among them. This argument
however, overlooks the facts that it is parents responsibility to watch after what their kids
are exposed to. Parents may decide whether they want their kids to watch or listen to a
program that could contain offensive material.
Additionaly, even if heavy censorship exists, it will most probably fail to its purpose
given nowadays connectivity and diverse sources that several broadcasts can find to
transmit their message. For example, YouTube, an online web site that enables users
throughout to world to upload their own broadcasts, provides an uncontrolled
environment to which kids may be exposed to even in countries when censorship is
applied to national television and radio broadcasts. This view on the censorship issue
brings us back to the relevance of parental guidance, rather censorship, to protect
audiences from offensive language and behavior.
Finally, censorship could collide with a basic principle of every free nation: the freedom
of speech. The limits and borderlines in determining what may be offensive than what
may not, could be used and abused- in order to prevent people, companies or artists to
express their message freely.
In conclusion, it is audience and ther parents in the case of children- that should hold the
responsibility and therefore the power to decide what they want to listen and what they
want to watch. In the end, if audiences find broadcasts to be offensive in any way, they
can choose not to see it or listen to it any more, leading to a loss in ratings and to the end
of offensive programs.

Analysis of an arguement
The argument wrongfully concludes that Olympic Foods can be expected to minimize
costs and maximizing profits based solely on the long experience the company relies on.
While it is true that experience can provide a significant source of advantage in terms of
improving costs of processing, it is a fallacy to assume that this is the main driver for
costs and therefore, profits as well.
Taking the example of color film processing, that improved both in terms of costs ant
lead times during 1970 and 1984, with no further explanation of this example can bias the
conclusion. It is possible that lead times and costs were improved during those years due
to heavy investment in technology and the development of more advanced color film
processing techniques. By analogy with this example, if Olympic Foods hasnt renewed
its machinery and food processing tecniques, its experience will prove to be insufficient
to keep competing against other brand-new food processing companies that rely on more
advanced technology.
Additionaly, experience by itself does not guarantee that organizations learn to do things
better as the writer argues. Coke and Pepsi pose an excellent example that contradicts this
statement. Coke had been in the market place long before Pepsi even existed, but it was a
fresh and new look at the beverages market what provided Pepsi with the necessary
advantage to gain customers, reduce costs by increasing scale and therefore ripping
profits away from Coke.
Finally, even if it were true that in the food processing industry, experience is a main
lever for reducing costs, the fact that Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth
birthday does not provide with enough information about the market to guarantee that its
experience will traduce into profits. It could be possible that other companies compiting
against Olympic Foods had been in the processing food business long before Olympic
Foods wasnt even born and therefore, if it were true that experience drives cost
efficency, Olympic Foods would be doomed to extinction.