标题: 0910AW Argument101 by 【galloper】Far [打印本页] 作者: ystyle 时间: 2009-7-18 18:32:59 标题: 0910AW Argument101 by 【galloper】Far
本帖最后由 ystyle 于 2009-7-18 20:08 编辑
TOPIC: ARGUMENT101 - 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."
WORDS: 449 TIME: 01:03:00 DATE: 2009/7/18 18:00:27
According this argument, the president recommends that by adding their products, Wheat-O, with more soy protein, the company profits will increase and, meanwhile, their customers' health condition will also be improved. To justify his or her conclusion, the speaker points out that in a recent study, people who ate soybeans more than five times per week enjoy a better body condition, especially have a lower cholesterol levels than those who ate no soy products. The arguer also cites the fact that they can appeal to additional consumers by putting soy protein into their Wheat-O cereal. However, this argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
Firstly, the author provides the variation in frequency of eating soybean as the only factor of lowing cholesterol levels. Albeit the difference of that may lead to the consequence that the arguer states, there are myriad of other factors which, if differ in some cases, will bring about the entirely different result of the study. For example, we do not know the structure of ages, sexual distinction and occupation of the respondents, all of which will absolutely affect the ultimate result of the study. Thereby, without any further consideration of these factors, the arguer cannot convince us that it is the soybeans, not others, cause the significantly low cholesterol levels.
Secondly, in stating the assumption that both the company and the customers will benefit from fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, the president commits a fallacy of hastily generalization. As we all know, there are basic differences between soybeans and soy protein, the latter is one of the former's compositions, thus soy protein is not a good indication of soybean and could not be used properly to illustrate that soy protein has the same function as soybean to bring down human's cholesterol levels. The arguer ought to make a wary and clear differentiation between them before we could evaluate if the inference is justified.
Thirdly, the new version of Wheat-O should increase company profit is also open to doubt, since the arguer does not offer any single evidence to substantiate the assumption. Many other factors may interpret the assumption suspect. Maybe the number of people who facing at the cholesterol problem is just a little or maybe the attitude of those who suffering a cholesterol problem would rather adopt formal treatment rather than take their products. Without ruling out all other possibility above, the arguer cannot make any general conclusion about they will undoubtedly profit.
In sum, the argument is indefensible and unpersuasive. To strengthen it, the president must show more details about the study they conducted and take more other factors into account before they make any judgment.作者: songluleicsu 时间: 2009-7-24 19:40:53
本帖最后由 songluleicsu 于 2009-7-24 19:57 编辑
According this argument, the president recommends that by adding their products, Wheat-O, with more soy protein, the company profits will increase and, meanwhile, their customers' health condition will also be improved. To justify his or her conclusion, the speaker points out that in a recent study, people who ate soybeans more than five times per week enjoy a better body condition, especially have a lower cholesterol levels than those who ate no soy products. The arguer also cites the fact that they can appeal to additional consumers by putting soy protein into their Wheat-O cereal. However, this argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
Firstly, the author provides the variation in frequency of eating soybean as the only factor of lowing cholesterol levels. Albeit the difference of that may lead to the consequence that the arguer states, there are myriad of other factors which, if differ in some cases, will bring about the entirely different result of the study. For example, we do not know the structure of ages, sexual distinction and occupation of the respondents, all of which will absolutely affect the ultimate result of the study(我觉得这里可以写得更具体点). Thereby, without any further consideration of these factors, the arguer cannot convince us that it is the soybeans, not others, cause the significantly low cholesterol levels.
Secondly, in stating the assumption that both the company and the customers will benefit from fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, the president commits a fallacy of hastily generalization. As we all know, there are basic differences between soybeans and soy protein, the latter is one of the former's compositions, thus soy protein is not a good indication of soybean and could not be used properly to illustrate that soy protein has the same function as soybean to bring down human's cholesterol levels. The arguer ought to make a wary and clear differentiation between them before we could evaluate if the inference is justified.
Thirdly, the new version of Wheat-O should increase company profit is also open to doubt, since the arguer does not offer any single evidence to substantiate the assumption. Many other factors may interpret the assumption suspect. Maybe the number of people who facing(face) at the cholesterol problem is just a little（改成small会不会比较好） or maybe the attitude of those who suffering(suffer) a cholesterol problem would rather adopt formal treatment rather than take their products. Without ruling out all other possibility(possibilities) above, the arguer cannot make any general conclusion about they will undoubtedly profit.
In sum, the argument is indefensible and unpersuasive. To strengthen it, the president must show more details about the study they conducted and take more other factors into account before they make any judgment