Argument15 [aero作文组]第二次作业 by beetle1986

beetle1986UID: 2431214

Argument 15 by beetle1986
请大家不吝赐教


These advice offered form the newsletter are based on three assumptions. First, the reliability and generality of the survey are open to question. In addition, the low-fat products will replace the market which was owned by Old Dairy. The arguer also fails to consider that Old Dairy would respond to the changes in markets. I will discuss each of these facts in turn.

In evaluating, the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable-people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few senior citizen or corpulent man, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the respondents of survey old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generality of the survey results.

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the desire of people that reduce their intake of fat and the low-fat products abound in stores will lead to reduce of market which was owned by Old dairy. But the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. No evidence indicates that the only rule of food choosing is that if it contains low fat and cholesterol. Other factors could affect people’s choosing on food, such as taste, price, brand and so on. And no report shows that the market of Old Diary is diminishing. So the second assumption is groundless.

Finally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that Old Diary does not have the health food. Even if Old Diary’s response is so beef-witted that its sales are diminishing greatly, the Old Diary is not valueless. At first, Old Diary still has an adequate market to support itself. Secondly, the ability of manage, channels of sale, mode of selling etc. are also the significant factors that investors should considered. If the stockholders and potential investors start the exploring of health food, they will make a considerable profit.

In conclusion, the arguer hurriedly put out the recommendation before seriously research Old Diary Industries and current situation of food market is unfair. To prove that Old Diary Industries is not suit to invest, the arguer needs to provide evidences that Old Diary does have the ability to explore health food and its market was seriously compacted by health food.

[ 本帖最后由 beetle1986 于 2007-12-16 20:51 编辑 ]

bigyanUID: 2382427

These advice offered form （from?）the newsletter are based on three assumptions. First, the reliability and generality of the survey are open to question. In addition, the low-fat products will replace the market which was owned by Old Dairy. The arguer also fails to consider that Old Dairy would respond to the changes in markets. I will discuss each of these facts in turn.

In evaluating, the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable-people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few senior citizen or corpulent man, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the respondents of survey old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generality of the survey results.

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the desire of people that reduce their intake of fat and the low-fat products abound(abounding) in stores will lead to reduce of market which was owned by Old dairy. But the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. No evidence indicates that the only rule of food choosing is that if it contains low fat and cholesterol. Other factors could affect people’s choosing on food, such as taste, price, brand and so on. And no report shows that the market of Old Diary is diminishing. So the second assumption is groundless.

Finally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that Old Diary does not have the health food. Even if Old Diary’s response is so beef-witted that its sales are diminishing greatly, the Old Diary is not valueless. At first, Old Diary still has an adequate market to support itself. Secondly, the ability of manage, channels of sale, mode of selling etc. are also the significant factors that investors should considered. If the stockholders and potential investors start the exploring of health food, they will make a considerable profit.

In conclusion, the arguer hurriedly put out the recommendation before seriously research Old Diary Industries and current situation of food market is unfair. To prove that Old Diary Industries is not suit to invest, the arguer needs to provide evidences that Old Diary does have the ability to explore health food and its market was seriously compacted by health food.
似乎可以看出作者已经有了一套属于自己的模板，文章也显得很丰满，只是不知是否是在规定时间内完成的。

武寒UID: 2300087

These advices offered form（from） the newsletter are based on three assumptions. First, the reliability and generality of the survey are open to question. In addition, the low-fat products will replace the market which was owned by Old Dairy. The arguer also fails to consider that Old Dairy would respond to the changes in markets. I will discuss each of these facts in turn.
开头直接列举文章中的错误
In evaluating, the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable-people who might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few senior citizen or corpulent man, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the respondents of survey old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generality of the survey results.
对survey的质疑，写的挺好的
Even if one accepts the survey’s results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the desire of people that reduce their intake of fat and the low-fat products abound in stores will lead to reduce of market which was owned by Old dairy. But the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. No evidence indicates that the only rule of food choosing is that if it contains low fat and cholesterol. Other factors could affect people’s choosing on food, such as taste, price, brand and so on. And no report shows that the market of Old Diary is diminishing. So the second assumption is groundless.
对food containing fat 销售下降的质疑
Finally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that Old Diary does not have the health food. Even if Old Diary’s response is so beef-witted that its sales are diminishing greatly, the Old Diary is not valueless. At first, Old Diary still has an adequate market to support itself. Secondly, the ability of manage, channels of sale, mode of selling etc. are also the significant factors that investors should considered. If the stockholders and potential investors start the exploring of health food, they will make a considerable profit.

In conclusion, that the arguer hurriedly put out the recommendation before (without) seriously research on Old Diary Industries and current situation of food market is unfair. To prove that Old Diary Industries is not suit to invest, the arguer needs to provide evidences that Old Diary does have the ability to explore health food and its market was seriously compacted by health food.
条理清晰，好文章