argu101 考试的时候也就这水平了，大家看看有什么问题么？十二分的感谢

louchen1984UID: 172975

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.'


The president alleges that by  adding soy protein to Wheat-O(WO) , the company will attract more consumers who care about their health and as a result can increase sales and profits, meanwhile the customers' health will be improved. To support his allegation, he cites the result of a recent study which shows that people had lower cholesterol levels when they ate more soybeans every week.  The allegation seems appealing at first glance, yet further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logic flaws, which makes it unconvincing.

First, the allegation is based on the vague information provided by  the recent study, which is unwarranted.  The president fails to provide evidence about how the study was conducted, how many subjects were involved and what were their health conditions. For example, if the sample is small, then the result is not representative of general people in the country. Also if people ate soybeans five times a week were vegetarians while people do not take such soy food are fat, elderly people, then the result might have nothing to do with soybeans. In short, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion from such insufficient information.

Secondly, the president commits a fallacy of false analogy. Even it were the case that soybeans help people to reduce cholesterol levels, it does not mean that the effect of soybeans is also applicable to soy protein. The difference between soybeans and soy protein may preclude them from having the same effect on people's health. It is entirely possible that other elements in soybeans serves to lower cholesterol levels. If so, the president's advice to add soy protein to WO cereal is not worthy of consideration.

Thirdly, even if it were granted that fortifying WO cereal with soy protein benefits people's health, it does not amount to increased sales. For example, if the WO cereal has bad taste and lacks other essential nutrition to meet people's demand for breakfast, consumers might still refuse WO cereal, even it can reduce cholesterol levels. Therefore, there is no reason for the president to predict such optimistic prospect for the sales of WO cereal.

Last but not least, the president's prediction of increased profits is groundless. Other factors which might affect profits should be taken into consideration. For instance, it is just as likely that the cost of combining WO cereals with soy protein is very high, or the management of the company is poor. Both factors will undermine the profits of the company.

In conclusion, the president's allegation is unconvincing as it stands. To better support it, he should provide more evidence to lend credibility to the study. In addition, he has to prove that by fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, the products will be welcomed by customers will bring high profits to the company.

mythztUID: 162409

The president alleges that by adding soy protein to Wheat-O(WO) , the company will attract more consumers who care about their health and as a result can increase sales and profits, meanwhile是副词吧?两个句子隔开应该不能用逗号加副词，在meanwhile前面加个and可能好一些meanwhile the customers'  health will be improved. To support his allegation, he cites the result of a recent study which shows建议写成showing that people had lower cholesterol levels when they ate more soybeans every week. The allegation seems appealing at first glance, yet further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logic flaws, which makes it unconvincing.

First, the allegation is based on the vague information provided by the recent study, which is unwarranted. The president fails to provide evidence about how the study was conducted, how many subjects were involved and what were their health conditions. For example, if the sample is small, then最好前面加个and，then也是副词 the result is not representative of general people in the country. Also if people ate改为eating或者加个先行词 soybeans five times a week were vegetarians while people do感觉这句话前后时态不一致？ not take such soy food are fat, elderly people, then the result might have nothing to do with soybeans. In short, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion from such insufficient information.

Secondly, the president commits a fallacy of false analogy. Even it were the case that soybeans help people toto可删去否? reduce cholesterol levels, it does not mean that the effect of soybeans is also applicable to soy protein. The difference between soybeans and soy protein may preclude them from having the same effect on people's health. It is entirely possible that other elements in soybeans servesserve to lower cholesterol levels. If so, the president's advice to add soy protein to WO cereal is not worthy of consideration.我觉得作者在这里偷换了概念，似乎不是错误类比

Thirdly, even if it were granted that fortifying WO cereal with soy protein benefits people's health, it does not amount to increased sales. For example, if the WO cereal has bad taste and lacks other essential nutrition to meet people's demand for breakfast, consumers might still refuse WO cereal, even even ifit can reduce cholesterol levels. Therefore, there is no reason for the president to predict such optimistic prospect for the sales of WO cereal.

Last but not least, the president's prediction of increased profits is groundless. Other factors which might affect profits should be taken into consideration. For instance, it is just as likely that the cost of combining WO cereals with soy protein is very high, or the management of the company is poor. Both factors will undermine the profits of the company.

In conclusion, the president's allegation is unconvincing as it stands. To better support it, he should provide more evidence to lend credibility to the study. In addition, he has to prove that by fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, the products will be welcomed by customers andwill bring high profits to the company.

第一次帮人该作文，不知深浅，还请多多包涵！只能改改语法错误，其余没啥看法。楼主能写出四点理由已经很牛了，加油！

louchen1984UID: 172975

非常感谢~~
[QUOTE]Secondly, the president commits a fallacy of false analogy. Even it were the case that soybeans help people toto可删去否? reduce cholesterol levels, it does not mean that the effect of soybeans is also applicable to soy protein. The difference between soybeans and soy protein may preclude them from having the same effect on people's health. It is entirely possible that other elements in soybeans servesserve to lower cholesterol levels. If so, the president's advice to add soy protein to WO cereal is not worthy of consideration.我觉得作者在这里偷换了概念，似乎不是错误类比

puzzled,那怎样才算呢？？还请指教

ivyshoulUID: 195537

诶...我也不明白,是偷换概念么
那么究竟什么才算false analogy?

goasupleaseUID: 195799

说fa确实有点牵强
典型的false analogy比如:A厂在某地成功了,因为成本低,推出B厂在某地也会成功;本质是没有考虑到差异性.我觉得对fallacy的名字不必太在意写出来的

louchen1984UID: 172975

有道理，也不知改卷的老师自己清楚不