[a习作temp] =galloper=组 ARGUMENT101 by B16 GrossDeutsch [复制链接]

GrossDeutsch
UID: 2664531

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 55
注册时间: 2009-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-18 14:38:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：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."
字数：497       用时：00:44:27       日期：2009-7-13 21:17:11
In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that eating soybeans especially the soy protein will do good to the health of human beings, therefore they should improve their product to make it sales better and do more benefit to the humans. However, the conclusion is based on inadequate evidences, which means that the information the passage gives us could hardly inevitably result in the result the author make.
In the first place, the author falsely analogy the soybeans to the soy products. As the common sense, the soy products has a much wilder range than the soybeans, the thing such as Tofu, bean pies are both one member of soy products but not the soybeans. That means a man eat soybeans five times a week may have soy products several times or none. Thus even with  the regardless of the background of this study, we can merely conclude that it is the soybeans but not the soy products that really work the decrease the cholesterol.
Following the last assumption, it is still a question that who really does, soybeans or soy products? We would retort the author that why is five times but not the three or six times. As there is no statistical correlation between the consequence and the frequency you have the beans. That may cause a situation that less or more than five times per week may all do harm to your health.
In addition, the author suggest that the should fortify with soy protein, that one is also skeptical. There is no clear evidence shows that it is the protein that does so. And as in m minds phospholipids which is highly contain in the beans do significant help to us. Therefore, his plan would just increase the cost of the  cereal but do nothing to the cholesterol.
Then, the author make the result that it could increase company profits and improve the health of their customs is also stands on a perilous foundation. As it said above, the soy protein will increase the cost, so the company must improve the sales price to get more profits. But the thing most attract the major customers are not the health but the price. That is obvious that the company will have to shoulder the lose.
What is worse, the one who buy the cereal most may be the one who do no have any problem at cholesterol, to whom, them would never care how many soy protein you had put into the products. To them, the choice i obvious. No one will buy a candle for a blind just as not one in health would pay for this cereal.
In general, the author fails to persuade the reader that the put soy protein in the cereal is a thing worth well. To strength this assumption, the author should give more evidences about the soy protein really do good to people and the customer cares the function the decrease the cholesterol of cereal the most.

回应
0

使用道具举报

songluleicsu
UID: 2605045

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 110
注册时间: 2009-2-22
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2009-7-24 19:06:09 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 songluleicsu 于 2009-7-24 19:33 编辑

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that eating soybeans especially the soy protein will do good to the health of human beings, therefore they should improve their product to make it sales(sale) better and do more benefit to the humans. However, the conclusion is based on inadequate evidences, which means that the information the passage gives us could hardly inevitably result in the result the author makes.(我觉得你最后这句话写得有点太多复杂了，建议改一下)
In the first place, the author falsely analogy the soybeans to the soy products. As the common sense, the soy products has a much wilder（wider） range than the soybeans, the thing such as Tofu, bean pies are both one member of soy products but not the soybeans. That means a man eat soybeans five times a week may have soy products several times or none（豆子不属于豆制品吗）. Thus even with the regardless of the background of this study(Regardless of the background of the study), we can merely conclude that it is the soybeans but not the soy products that really work the decrease the cholesterol(which leads to the decreased cholesterol).(我个人感觉你这一段的反驳不是很在理啊。。。你试图把豆制品和大豆区别开来，我觉得你并没有做到）
Following the last assumption, it is still a question that who really does, soybeans or soy products? We would retort the author that why is five times but not the three or six times. As there is no statistical correlation between the consequence and the frequency you have the beans. That may cause a situation that less or more than five times per week may all do harm to your health.
In addition, the author suggests that the Wheat-O should be fortified with soy protein, that one is also skeptical. There is no clear evidence shows that it is the protein that does so. And as in my minds phospholipids which is highly contain in the beans do significant help to us. Therefore, his plan would just increase the cost of the cereal but do nothing to the cholesterol.
Then, the author makes the result that it could increase company profits and improve the health of their customers is also stands on a perilous foundation(这句话语法有错误). As it said above, the soy protein will increase the cost, so the company must improve the sales price to get more profits. But the thing most attract the major customers are not the health but the price. That is obvious that the company will have to shoulder the lose.
What is worse, the one who buys the cereal most may be the one who does not have any problem at cholesterol, to whom, them would never care how many soy protein you had put into the products. To them, the choice i obvious. No one will buy a candle for a blind just as not one in health would pay for this cereal.
In general, the author fails to persuade the reader that the puting soy protein in the cereal is a thing worth well. To strength this assumption, the author should give more evidences about the soy protein really do good to people and the customer cares the function the decrease the cholesterol of cereal the most.
从整篇看来，你的文章存在不少的语法错误，建议你写完之后先自己修改一下。另外，虽然你找出了不少错误之处，但我觉得你对这篇argument的反驳从整体来看不是很有力。欢迎回拍~~~ 共同进步

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报