Argument101 【miracle】第N次作业 要考了，急～～～

边缘泪UID: 2281898

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: 471          TIME: 0:30:09          DATE: 2007-2-18

Before deciding to fortify the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, some obvious flaws in this memo should be checked. Several doubtful assumptions render the conclusion that the new version of Wheat-O should increase company profit unconvincing as it stands. I will discuss each of them below.
       
First, the study cited by the president is questionable. The president fails to provide us any precise and accurate information about the study. Without such evidence as the sample size of the study, the number and rate of respondents and the representive of overall residents, it is entirely possible that the number of people participated in the study is too small to convince me. Or, perhaps the study was organized only in the company, and the respondents tended to make the new product. Without sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that soybean can function in the decline of cholesterol levels, the president should not draw any conclusion upon it.


Even if we accept the results of the study, the argument is still can not convince me.       
The fact that people can be benefit from the soybeans dose not necessarily indicates that the soy protein can facilitate a decline in cholesterol level. It is entirely possible that some other materials in the soybeans have to do with the cholesterol level. It is also possible that the soy protein can be of use only when there is a certain catalyst and the environmental conditions is suitable/proper. Without sufficient evidence, the arguer should not draw any conclusion upon it.

Moreover, even assuming that the soy protein can benefit the Wheat-O, the conclusion that the new version of Wheat-O would increase company profit is too hastily to convince me. First, the mere fact that customers concerned about health does not indicates they will be willing to buy the product. Perhaps the taste does not cater for the habit of the resident or perhaps they do not like the wheat product at all. In addition, some other factors, such as the price, promotion, duty, costs for improvement of the product and even costs for transit and delivery should be taken into account of. For example, it is entirely possible that the costs for new products will be so high as to preclude any profit from the product sales. As a company that makes breakfast cereals, some factors such as weather, healthy conditions, lifestyles and ages of residents should be overlooks as well. In sum, without stronger evidence, the resident can not convince me that the proposed course of action would be a profitable one.
       
  In sum， the resident can not draw any conclusion so hastily on the limited and doubtful reasons. To strengthen the argument, the president should collect more information about the study. To further strengthen it, he can provide sufficient information about the product and the residents.

yafengweiyiUID: 2201278

"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."
Before deciding to fortify the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, some obvious flaws in this memo should be checked. Several doubtful assumptions render the conclusion that the new version of Wheat-O should increase company profit unconvincing as it stands. I will discuss each of them below.
        
First, the study cited by the president is questionable. The president fails to provide us any precise and accurateaccurate, precise重复 information about the study. Without such evidencewithout such information as the sample size of the study, the number and rate of respondents and the of overall residentsand the representiveness of the sample in the overall population, it is entirely possible that the number of people participated in the study is too small to convince metoo small. Or, perhaps the study was organizedcarried out only in the company, and the respondents tended to make the new productamong the employees of the Wheat-O cereal manufacture who favors their own products of course. Without sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that soybean can function in the decline of cholesterol levels, the president should not draw any conclusion upon it.

Even if we accept the results of the study, the argument is still can not convince me.        
The fact that people can be benefit from the soybeans dose not necessarily indicates that the soy protein can facilitate a decline in cholesterol level. It is entirely possible that some other materials in the soybeans have to do with the cholesterol level. It is also possible that the soy protein can be of use only when there is a certain catalyst and the environmental conditions is suitable/proper. Without sufficient evidence, the arguer should not draw any conclusion upon it.
上下两段间有逻辑间隙，即使SOYBEANS 能Low the cholesterol level, 也不能证明加了soybeans 的wheat-o对身体有益。
Moreover, even assuming that the soy protein can benefit the Wheat-O, the conclusion that the new version of Wheat-O would increase company profit is too hastilyhasty to convince me. First, the mere fact that customers concerned about health does not indicates they will be willing to buy the product. Perhaps the taste does not cater for the habit of the resident or perhaps they do not like the wheat product at all. In addition, some other factors, such as the price, promotion, duty, costs for improvement of the product and even costs for transit and delivery should be taken into account of. For example, it is entirely possible that the costs for new products will be so high as to preclude any profit from the product sales. As a company that makes breakfast cereals, some factors such as weather, healthy conditions, lifestyles and ages of residents should be overlooks as well. In sum, without stronger evidence, the resident can not convince me that the proposed course of action would be a profitable one.连用两个in sum 不好
        
  In sum， the resident can not draw any conclusion so hastily on the limited and doubtful reasons. To strengthen the argument, the president should collect more information about the study. To further strengthen it, he can provide sufficient information about the product and the residents.
其实多看北美，和官方的文章有好处

[ 本帖最后由 yafengweiyi 于 2007-2-21 23:41 编辑 ]

xantheliaUID: 2278781

开头很简炼
:rolleyes:

[ 本帖最后由 xanthelia 于 2007-2-22 00:48 编辑 ]