【Flyer杀G作文组】06月28日Argument15-By 潇

红绡UID: 2839171

ARGUMENT 15
15. The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.

"Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and their profits will no doubt decrease.
We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."
难度：★★★★
=======================================
In this editorial, the author points out that the Old Dairy Industries are processing many food products high in fat and cholesterol, and then cites the result of a recent survey which indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol. Relied on these evidences, the author concludes that Old Dairy stockholders would better to sell their share and other investors not to purchase stock in this company. However, careful examination of this supporting evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant’s claim.

First of all, it is obviously artificial to conclude that Old Dairy Industries have not healthy food with low fat and cholesterol, so that they are not worth to be invested. There is no plenty of proof showing that Old Dairy Industries do not make healthy and low-fat and cholesterol products currently or in future. If Old Dairy Industries have been developing the healthy foods, their new products would be probable to exhibit excellently in the market considering this company’s market share. So the premise cannot be tenable.

As for the argument that the author believes that there would be decrease of the market share for Old Dairy Industries, the author put an example that as a result of the survey, over 80 percent of the respondents wish the market to reduce the intake of fat and cholesterol. In this example, the author did not provide any evidence to prove if low-fat and cholesterol is the unique or the vital standard to choose foods, because other points like taste, price or brand would also be elements which people consider to choose. Additionally, there is no material indicating whether the survey is efficient or not and if older or overweight people are mainly inquired, it would not be universally persuasive. Without these relevant materials, it cannot be confirmed that the current products of Old Dairy Industries would lose their market share before.

Furthermore, there are plenty of low-fat products in stores, but it has nothing to do with the appearance of Old Dairy Industries at the market, because the editorial has not explained which style the products are. Are they cakes or ice-cream? Are they similar to ones of Old Dairy Industries? Do they wave the market of Old Dairy Industries? All these are the problems which need to consider. Also the editor did not indicate whether people prefer these commodities or not. So these products cannot prove that Old Dairy Industries would lose their market sufficiently.

It is the same unreasonable as to the argument releasing. Even if Old Dairy Industries reflect insensitively to the need of market and lose their market share step by step, we cannot concede that they are not worth to be funded. After all, a large part of food market is possessed by them who have a powerful and appealing brand. And there are many other factors which can be considered to check and analyze whether they have investment value such as marketing channel, operating capability, and marketing patterns and so on. It is not final judgment. Old Dairy Industries and other investors who are interested may convert Old Dairy Industries, for example, grasping to draw new and healthy foods.

In sum, the arguer concluded the argument without learning information about Old Dairy Industries and current food market deeply, and it is not fair. If the author wants to prove Old Dairy Industries unworthy to be invested indeed, he or she should prove that the company cannot exploit new products and the market has been waved severely. In addition, the dominant position of Old Dairy Industries has gone.

MaryWongUID: 2619999

n this editorial, the author points out that the Old Dairy Industries are processing many food products high in fat and cholesterol, and then cites the result of a recent survey which indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol. Relied on these evidences, the author concludes that Old Dairy stockholders would better to sell their share and other investors not to purchase stock in this company. （建议作者在复述题目时换种说法，而不是大部分照抄）However, careful examination of this supporting evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant’s claim.
First of all, it is obviously artificial to conclude that Old Dairy Industries have not healthy food with low fat and cholesterol, so that they are not worth to be invested. There is no plenty of proof showing that Old Dairy Industries do not make healthy and low-fat and cholesterol products currently or in future. If Old Dairy Industries have been developing the healthy foods, their new products would be probable to exhibit excellently in the market considering this company’s market share. So the premise cannot be tenable.
As for the argument that the author believes that there would be decrease of the market share for Old Dairy Industries, the author put an example that as a result of the survey, over 80 percent of the respondents wish the market to reduce the intake of fat and cholesterol. In this example, the author did not provide any evidence to prove if low-fat and cholesterol is the unique or the vital standard to choose foods, because other points like taste, price or brand would also be elements （by）which people consider to choose. Additionally, there is no material indicating whether the survey is efficient or not and if older or overweight people are mainly inquired,（应加连接词或断句） it would not be universally persuasive. Without these relevant materials, it cannot be confirmed that the current products of Old Dairy Industries would lose their market share before.
Furthermore, there are plenty of low-fat products in stores, but it has nothing to do with the appearance of Old Dairy Industries at the market, because the editorial has not explained which style the products are. Are they cakes or ice-cream? Are they similar to ones of Old Dairy Industries? Do they wave（是否该用shake?） the market of Old Dairy Industries? All these are the problems which need to consider. Also the editor did not indicate whether people prefer these commodities or not. So these products cannot prove that Old Dairy Industries would lose their market sufficiently.
It is the same unreasonable as to the argument releasing. Even if Old Dairy Industries reflect insensitively to the need of market and lose their market share step by step, we cannot concede that they are not worth to be funded. After all, a large part of food market is possessed by them who have a powerful and appealing brand. And there are many other factors which can be considered to check and analyze whether they have investment value such as marketing channel, operating capability, and marketing patterns and so on. It is not final judgment. Old Dairy Industries and other investors who are interested (in the company)may convert Old Dairy Industries, for example, grasping to draw new and healthy foods.
In sum, the arguer concluded the argument without learning information about Old Dairy Industries and current food market deeply, and it is not fair. If the author wants to prove Old Dairy Industries unworthy to be invested indeed, he or she should prove that the company cannot exploit new products and the market has been waved severely. In addition, the dominant position of Old Dairy Industries has gone.