寄托家园留学论坛

标题: Argument101=So What=小组第5次作业 by 紫薇花开 [打印本页]

作者: 紫薇花开 时间: 2009-6-26 10:20:09 标题: Argument101=So What=小组第5次作业 by 紫薇花开

101.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals.

"In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers."
在最近的一次调查中，那些每周至少吃五次大豆的调查对象的胆固醇值比不吃大豆制品的人低很多。通过在我们的Wheat-O麦片中添加大豆蛋白，我们可以通过吸引更多的关注自身健康的消费者来增加销量。这种新的Wheat-O应该能够增加公司的利润，并且同时促进我们消费者的健康。

作者: 紫薇花开 时间: 2009-6-26 10:21:35

Standing on the study, the author assumes that eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower than eating no soy products and provides another assumption that lower cholesterol level is healthy for people. Without supporting any evidence, it is absurd for arguer to soy protein to our Wheat-O cereal so that the sales could be increased, at the same time, depending on the above action, the arguer shares a belief that company profits could be increased and the health of our customers will be improved.
Firstly, grounding on the study, the author assumes that the relationship of soybeans and cholesterol levels is that the former reduce the later. To support his/her assumption, he/she submits a contrast. However, the arguer forgets to point out the healthy condition of subjects and the diet condition. Because it is reasonable to think the subjects who eat soybeans at least five times a week have a bad health, which induce their cholesterol levels lower than the subjects who have a good health, without eating soybeans. In a no dissimilar way, different diet customs causes different healthy condition. So the only time the arguer can claim that eating soybeans indeed makes cholesterol levels lower just when he/she shows that there are no other influence factors on people’s cholesterol levels.
Secondly, without any information about whether there is a correlation between health and cholesterol levels. The arguer can’t claim that lower cholesterol levels is healthy condition for people. It is on the ground to think that it is dangerous for people who have a lower cholesterol levels. Similarly, there is no information on soy protein. For instance, whether adding soy protein to Wheat-O cereal which give a bad influence on our products. Considering the above factors, the arguer should do studies on this aspect.
Thirdly, even if eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower, leading to a healthy condition for people: it is unwarranted to show that fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers. On the one hand, there is no information about whether it remains the taste as before after adding soy protein. On the other hand, the arguer doesn’t provide a survey about how many people accept the new taste and are willing to buy it. Without these, it is not safe to increase sales by this method.
Finally, even if all of the study and assumptions are successful, the arguer can’t reach out to the conclusion that company profits could be increased. There is two factors—revenue and costs relevant profit. On this aspect, there is no information in this argument.
To sum up, if the arguer wants to have a convincing conclusion, there are many works to do such as whether there are other factors which influence people’s cholesterol levels and healthy condition it is presumptuous to judge profit only according to sales.

作者: xwlove 时间: 2009-6-26 17:06:29

本帖最后由 xwlove 于 2009-6-26 17:31 编辑

Standing on the study（？stand on有这种用法？可有考证）, the author assumes that eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower than eating no soy products and provides another assumption that lower cholesterol level is healthy for people. Without supporting any（any supporting） evidence, it is absurd for the arguer to ? soy protein to our Wheat-O cereal so that the sales could be increased, at the same time, depending on the above action, the arguer shares a belief(天啊，惊现silentwings的负效应！！！share是什么意思，一个人share个啥？看你是走火入魔了) that company profits could be increased and the health of our customers will be improved.

Firstly, grounding on the study（ground on能这样用？我认为类似于：base on用在句首应该是based on）, the author assumes that the relationship of soybeans and cholesterol levels is that the former reduce the later. To support his/her assumption, he/she submits a contrast. However, the arguer forgets to point out the healthy （health) condition of the subjects and the diet condition. Because it is reasonable to think the subjects who eat soybeans at least five times a week have a bad health, which induce their cholesterol levels lower than the subjects who have a good health, without eating soybeans(这句话看得我眼冒金花，不知作者要表达啥). In a no dissimilar way, different diet customs causes (cause) different healthy condition. So the only time the arguer can claim that eating soybeans indeed makes cholesterol levels lower just when he/she shows that there are no other influence factors（中式英语chinglish） on people’s cholesterol levels（该句子有语法问题，你分析一下句子成分）.

Secondly, without any information about whether there is a correlation between health and cholesterol levels（又有语法问题，分析句子成分）. The arguer can’t claim that lower cholesterol levels is healthy condition for people. It is on the ground to think that it is dangerous for people who have a lower cholesterol levels. Similarly, there is no information on soy protein. For instance, whether adding soy protein to Wheat-O cereal which give a bad influence on our products. Considering the above factors（above一般作后置定语）, the arguer should do studies on this aspect.

Thirdly, even if eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower, leading to a healthy condition for people: it is unwarranted to show that fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers. On the one hand, there is no information about whether it remains the taste as before after adding soy protein. On the other hand, the arguer doesn’t provide a survey about how many people accept the new taste and （whether they） are willing to buy it. Without these, it is not safe to increase sales by this method.

Finally, even if all of the study and assumptions are successful, the arguer can’t reach out to the conclusion that company profits could be increased. There is two factors—revenue and costs relevant profit. On（In/From） this aspect, there is no information in this argument.

To sum up, if the arguer wants to have a convincing conclusion, there are many works (jobs) to do such as whether there are other factors which influence people’s cholesterol levels and healthy condition it is presumptuous to judge profit only according to sales.

不管草木他们怎么说，我觉得还是有必要看一下XDF的指导意见，取其精华，去其糟粕。

如何减少语法错误，减少中式英语表达，也是值得你思考的问题。

作者: 2006201652 时间: 2009-6-30 12:51:27

Standing on the study, the author assumes that eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower than eating no soy products and provides another assumption that lower cholesterol level is healthy for people. Without supporting any evidence(这个没有用过唉，学习!), it is absurd for arguer to(to少动词宾语吧？) soy protein to our Wheat-O cereal so that the sales could be increased, at the same time, depending on the above action, the arguer shares a belief that company profits could be increased and the health of our customers will be improved.

Firstly, grounding on the study, the author assumes that the relationship of soybeans and cholesterol levels is that the former reduce the later（这么说麻烦不？直接S reduces C 可以不）. To support his/her assumption, he/she submits a contrast. However, the arguer forgets to point out the healthy condition of subjects and the diet condition. Because it is reasonable to think the subjects who eat soybeans at least five times a week have a bad health, which induce their cholesterol levels lower than the subjects who have a good health,（but） without eating soybeans. In a no dissimilar way, different diet customs causes different healthy condition. So the only time（什么意思？） the arguer can claim that eating soybeans indeed makes cholesterol levels lower just when he/she shows that there are no other influence factors on people’s cholesterol levels.

Secondly, without any information about whether there is a correlation between health and cholesterol levels.（句号改逗号，前后是一句话不要拆开） The arguer can’t claim that lower cholesterol levels is healthy condition for people. It is on the ground to think that it is dangerous for people who have a lower cholesterol levels.（实际是胆固醇低还还是高好呀？呵呵） Similarly, there is no information on（about） soy protein. For instance, whether adding soy protein to Wheat-O cereal which（delete） give a bad influence on our products. Considering the above factors, the arguer should do studies on this aspect.

Thirdly, even if eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower, leading（and leads） to a healthy condition for people: it is unwarranted to show that fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers. On the one hand, there is no information about whether it remains the taste as before after adding soy protein. On the other hand, the arguer doesn’t provide a survey about how many people accept the new taste and are willing to buy it. Without these, it is not safe（uncertain） to increase sales by this method.（继续加油！因果写得全面些。。。）

Finally, even if all of the study（？什么意思） and assumptions are successful, the arguer can’t reach out to the conclusion that company profits could be increased. There is two factors—revenue and costs relevant（？动词吗） profit. On this aspect, there is no information in this argument.（可以再充实些）

To sum up, if the arguer wants to have a convincing conclusion, there are many works to do such as whether there are other factors which influence people’s cholesterol levels and healthy condition it is presumptuous to judge profit only according to sales.（这句话不对，语法上不对，是两句话拼起来的，前边是一句话的一部分，后边是另一句话的一部分）

写得不错，继续加油。
让步式写法运用的很好，写得更充实些会更好，不用写这么多段落，集中充分的攻击2-3哥就可以吧、
有些词汇，句子可以写得更好一些，有些有中式英语的印象。

作者: 紫薇花开 时间: 2009-7-1 09:44:09

修改之后的

Standing on the study, the author assumes that eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower and provides another assumption that lower cholesterol level is healthy for people. Without supporting any evidence, it is absurd for arguer to add soy protein to our Wheat-O cereal so that the sales could be increased, at the same time, depending on the above action, the arguer shares a belief that company profits could be increased and the health of our customers will be improved.
Firstly, grounded on the study, the author assumes that
soybeans get cholesterol levels decline. To support his/her assumption, he/she submits a contrast. However, the arguer forgets to point out the healthy condition of subjects and the diet condition. Because it is reasonable to think the subjects, before eat soybeans at least five times a week, have already had a bad health--- lower cholesterol levels and the subjects without eating soybeans are in a good healthy condition. In a no dissimilar way, different diet customs may produce a body with different health. So the only time
the arguer can claim that eating soybeans indeed makes cholesterol levels lower just is when he/she shows that there are no other influence on people’s cholesterol levels.
secondly, without any information that for a healthy body, how much the cholesterol levels should be, the conclusion that lower cholesterol levels is healthy condition for people is hasty. It is on the ground to think that people who have lower cholesterol levels because of eating soybeans five times a week is in danger for their healthy. Similarly, there is no information on（about） soy protein. Specifically speaking, whether adding soy protein to Wheat-O cereal has a bad influence on our products or not. Considering the above factors, the arguer should do more studies on this aspect.

Thirdly, even if eating soybeans makes cholesterol levels lower and leads to a healthy condition for people; it is unwarranted to show that fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers. On the one hand, there is no information about whether it remains the taste as before after adding soy protein. If not, it is possible that we will lose the consumers who like our products now. On the other hand, the arguer doesn’t provide a survey about how many people accept the new taste and are willing to buy it. Without these, it is unsafe
to increase sales by this method.
Finally, even if the study and assumptions are successful, the arguer can’t reach out to the conclusion that company profits could be increased. There is two factors—revenue and costs relevant in profit. The excerpt of soy protein will cost a large number of money; does this expense will outweigh the revenue from the sales of our product. On this aspect, there is no information in this argument.
To sum up, if the arguer wants to give a convincing conclusion, there are many work to do such as whether there are other factors which influence people’s cholesterol levels and healthy condition. At the same, it is presumptuous to judge profit only according to sales.

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)