argument101 重头再来。请各位别手软。

imjasonUID: 176604

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."
提纲：1.调查对象的代表性。
      2．没有证据表明顾客会购买这种产品。
      3．即使这种产品受欢迎，其市场需求量未知。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this memo, the president recommends that the company would increase profits by fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein. He worker out his recommendation by stating a recent study that the subjects in the study who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than the subjects who did not. He also points out that this implement will improve the sales of the company and the health of the customers. However, with close scrutiny of this argument, I find that it contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that the subjects in the study are representative of the most of people, while which the president gives no such evidence. Perhaps these subjects in the experiment are carefully selected, always having healthy diets and keeping healthy bodies. Moreover, it is very likely that the cholesterol levels of the subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week are originally significantly lower than those of the subjects who ate no soybeans. Hence, without such sufficient evidence that all aspects of the participants in the study are similar, the president can not persuade me that the soybeans have this utility.

Furtherly, even if it is true that often eating soybeans is sure to low down the level of cholesterol, the president unfairly assumes that the additional customers concerning about their health would buy the new product agreeably. Perhaps, for example, the customers will directly purchase the soybeans instead, from which they may absorb in the nutrients easily and quickly. On the other hand, the president ignores that in the market, there may be other competitors which also supply healthy foods containing soy protein as well, and to some extent, have had a large percentage of the market. Thus, we can’t draw a firm conclusion that the new product will appeal additional customers.

Finally, we are not informed the concrete number or the percentage of the customers caring about their health, even though this new version is popular in the market. It is entirely possible that this new cereal is rather welcome among the customers while the actual amount of the need is very small or the number of the health-concerning customers is little. And on the other hand, if the cereal can improve the health of the customers, the common sense and experience tell me that it may be of a high price, which inhibit a number of customers buying it.

In sum, the president's memo is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolstering this argument, the president should provide us better evidence that the subjects in this study are representative of the most people and have the same or similar health conditions. Also to better access this argument I would need to get the information that the Wheat-O cereal is a popular product originally and the president should give us strictly statistics that the new version would also be agreeably accepted.

dragonflyljUID: 185331

In this memo, the president recommends that the company would increase profits by fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein (. He worker out his recommendation) (can be omitted)  by stating a recent study that the subjects in the study who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than the subjects who did not. He also points out that this implement will improve the sales of the company and the health of the customers. However, (with close scrutiny of this argument, I find that) can be omitted it contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands. (写简单些)

To begin with, the argument (er) assumes that the subjects in the study are (representative of the most of people) (representative enough for most people) , (while which the president gives no such evidence.) (is there anything wrong with this sentence?) Perhaps these subjects in the experiment are carefully selected, always having healthy diets and keeping healthy bodies. Moreover, it is very (donot use very) likely that the cholesterol levels of the subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week are originally significantly lower than those of the subjects who ate no soybeans. Hence, without such sufficient evidence that all aspects of the participants in the study are similar, the president can not persuade me (do not use "me", "readers" is better) that the soybeans have this utility.

Furtherly, even if it is true that often eating soybeans is sure to low down the level of cholesterol, the president unfairly assumes that the additional customers concerning about their health would buy the new product agreeably. Perhaps, for example, the customers will directly purchase the soybeans instead, from which they may absorb in the nutrients easily and quickly. On the other hand, the president ignores that in the market, there may be other competitors which also supply healthy foods containing soy protein as well, and to some extent, have had a large percentage(share is better) of the market. Thus, we (Iwe ?!)can’t (cannot)draw a firm conclusion that the new product will appeal additional customers.

Finally, we are not informed the concrete number or the percentage of the customers caring about their health, even though this new version is popular in the market. It is entirely possible that this new cereal is rather welcome among the customers while the actual amount of the need is very small or the number of the health-concerning customers is little. And on the other hand, if the cereal can improve the health of the customers, the common sense and experience (this is not persuasive, and the structure of this sentence is weak, in that the subject of the main sentence is so different from that of the "if" clause) tell me that it may be of a high price, which inhibit (s) a number of customers buying it.

In sum, the president's memo is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolstering this argument, the president should provide us better evidence that the subjects in this study are representative of the most people and have the same or similar health conditions. Also to better access this argument I would need to get the information that the Wheat-O cereal is a popular product originally and the president should give us strictly statistics that the new version would also be agreeably accepted. (Again, you had better to reconstruct this sentence, in which the subject before "and" is I, and that after "and" is the president; if you use "and hence", instead of "and", it will be better; but both of them make sense.)

ponponUID: 181304

感觉第一段应该简单点，要不就是浪费时间，其他的dragon改的挺好

imjasonUID: 176604

谢谢DRAGONFLYLJ和PONPON两位大侠的指点。
一定修改