argument101=so what=第五次作业 by linyan821230

linyan821230UID: 2638813

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: 391

ZhouPYFUID: 2633778

占楼
不好意思一直出差
今明两天一定修改

fengrui129UID: 2639927

The argument is based on a recent study that eating soybeans at least five times per week will help to lower people's cholesterol levels. The arguer believes that by fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein the new version of Wheat-O could increase company profits and improve the health of their customers, which seems be too optimistic.

Firstly, one of the arguer’s conclusions “the new version of Wheat-O should improve the health of our customers” depends on the unstated assumption that the soy protein is the key factor in lowering people’s cholesterol levels. However, soybeans as natural plants contain hundreds of components other than soy protein, and the arguer does not indicate there was any study on the effective component of soybeans in lowering cholesterol levels. Therefore, whether the new version of Wheat-O can benefit people’ health is still a question. (Wheat-O能改善健康的说法无根据，豆子中的成分不仅仅只是大豆蛋白)

Secondly, the arguer believes they can increase company profits by fortifying the old Wheat-O cereals with soy protein because new version of Wheat-O may improve customer’s health. The arguer fails to consider other factors which also influence people's behavior of purchasing. The increasing company profits should be the results of remaining the former customers,（patrons） who have chosen Wheat-O cereals as their breakfast, and attracting new customers, who might be interested in improving their health condition. In fact there are risks in fortifying Wheat-O cereals with soy protein. Perhaps the former customers have got used to the taste of the old version of Wheat-O and(+therefore, 有一层因果关系) refuse to accept the new version. And for new customers the company targets, it is possible for them to consider other factors, especially the price. The new version of Wheat-O cereals may increase price for（by） adding soy protein, which may prevent people from purchasing. If the soybeans are cheaper, there is no doubt many customers will choose eating soybeans directly rather than Wheat-O cereals. Therefore, the marketing of the new version of Wheat-O cereals is not predictable. (不一定会盈利)

In conclusion, the arguer is too optimistic about the new version of Wheat-O cereals. Here are two proposals for the president of the company: one is to confirm that soy protein is the component playing an important role in lowering cholesterol levels; the other one is to choose one or two cities to push the new product to see if it can be accepted by customers in a short time.

内容方面是不是攻击的点少了些，致使字数不够，一篇好的ARGU字数一般都是在450以上的

米丽水UID: 2637300

The arguer believes that by fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein the new version of Wheat-O could increase company profits and improve the health of their customers based on a recent study that eating soybeans at least five times per week will help to lower people's cholesterol levels and
….., which seems be too optimistic.
我觉得这个句型更清楚各句的逻辑关系。

Firstly, one of the arguer’s conclusions “the new version of Wheat-O should improve the health of our customers” depend on the unstated assumption that the soy protein is the key factor in lowering people’s cholesterol levels. However, soybeans as natural plants contain hundreds of components other than soy protein, and the arguer does not indicate there was any study on the effective component of soybeans in lowering cholesterol levels. Therefore, whether the new version of Wheat-O can benefit people’ health is still a question. 不错

Secondly, the arguer believes they can increase company profits by fortifying the old Wheat-O cereals with soy protein because new version of Wheat-O may improve customer’s health. The arguer fails to consider other factors which also influence people's behavior of purchasing. The increasing company profits should be the results of remaining the former customers, who have chosen Wheat-O cereals as their breakfast, and attracting new customers, who might be interested in improving their health condition. In fact there are risks in fortifying Wheat-O cereals with soy protein. Perhaps the former customers have got used to the taste of the old version of Wheat-O and refuse to accept the new version. And for new customers the company targets, it is possible for them to consider other factors, especially the price. The new version of Wheat-O cereals may increase price for adding soy protein, which may prevent people from purchasing. If the soybeans are cheaper, there is no(beyond) doubt many customers will choose eating soybeans directly rather than Wheat-O cereals. Therefore, the marketing of the new version of Wheat-O cereals is not predictable.

In conclusion, the arguer is too optimistic about the new version of Wheat-O cereals. Here are two proposals for the president of the company: one is to confirm that soy protein is the component playing an important role in lowering cholesterol levels; the other one is to choose one or two cities to push the new product to see if it can be accepted by customers in a short time.
不错，语言很好，学习。
回来改我的https://bbs.gter.net/thread-976616-1-1.html谢谢

linyan821230UID: 2638813

The argument is based on a recent study that eating soybeans at least five times per week will help to lower people's cholesterol levels. The arguer believes that by fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein the new version of Wheat-O could increase company profits and improve the health of their customers, which seems be too optimistic.

Firstly, one of the arguer’s conclusions “the new version of Wheat-O should improve the health of our customers” depends on the unstated assumption that the soy protein is the key factor in lowering people’s cholesterol levels. However, soybeans as natural plants contain hundreds of components other than soy protein, and the arguer does not indicate there was any study on the effective component of soybeans in lowering cholesterol levels. Therefore, whether the new version of Wheat-O can benefit people’ health is still a question.

Secondly, the arguer believes they can increase company profits by fortifying the old Wheat-O cereals with soy protein because new version of Wheat-O may improve customer’s health. The arguer fails to consider other factors which also influence people's behavior of purchasing. The increasing company profits should be the results of remaining the former customers, who have chosen Wheat-O cereals as their breakfast, and attracting new customers, who might be interested in improving their health condition. In fact there are risks in fortifying Wheat-O cereals with soy protein. Perhaps the former customers have got used to the taste of the old version of Wheat-O and refuse to accept the new version. And for new customers the company targets, it is possible for them to consider other factors, especially the price. The new version of Wheat-O cereals may increase price for adding soy protein, which may prevent people from purchasing. If the soybeans are cheaper, there is no doubt many customers will choose eating soybeans directly rather than Wheat-O cereals. Therefore, the marketing of the new version of Wheat-O cereals is not predictable.

In conclusion, the arguer is too optimistic about the new version of Wheat-O cereals. Here are two proposals for the president of the company: one is to confirm that soy protein is the component playing an important role in lowering cholesterol levels; the other one is to choose one or two cities to push the new product to see if it can be accepted by customers in a short time.