argument40 [gter三月机考小组第五次作业]

slipingUID: 2584903

argument40
The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of Excello Food Markets.
"In 90 towns where Excello has food markets, natural-food stores specializing in organic food products—products containing no chemical preservatives and made with foods grown without pesticides—have opened nearby as competitors. Surveys of our own customers reveal a growing concern about foods grown usin pesticides or preserved with chemicals. Recently our market in Sun City participated in a local food tasting fair, and 75 percent of the fair goers who visited the Excello booth requested free samples of organic fruit. Such evidence indicates that to increase our profits, we should begin to stock a full

line of organic food products in all our markets."
The writer of the argument states that to increase profits in the markets we should begin to stock a full line of organic food products. To illustrate the statement the writer claims that the survey shows that people become more and more concern with the using in pesticides or preserving with chemicals, and 75percent of the local fare goers requested free samples of organic fruit. Scrutiny of the argument indicates the writer commit several fallacies.

First of all, the writer cites that the survey reveals that our customers concern more about the pesticides and chemicals than before. But this phenomenon does not mean the customers will turn to buy the organic food products. It is entirely possible that the price of the organic food will higher than other food products. Owing to it cannot use pesticides, the production of the food will decrease, because some of the products will eaten by pests. And preserving without chemicals will surely decrease the preserve time, so more products may go to bad before it be sold. Further, maybe customers just want to reduce the use of pesticides and chemicals in other kinds of food products. In a word, the survey cannot to prove that customers will buy the organic food products.

In addition, it is apparently improper to regard the condition of the local fare as the condition of all other district. As people from different districts may have different attitude to food. The people in local area are fond of organic food product. But it may be not true in other areas. What is more, the writer fails to mention whether all the products displayed in the fare are free. If there is only the organic food products are free, for that matter, people are more likely to choose it. So it has nothing to do with the popularity of organic food.

Even assuming that the sales of the organic food will increase, it is unwarranted to conclude that the profits will increase as well. Common sense informs me the profits are determined by both costs and incomes. But there is little evidence show that the costs are stay in the same. It is possible that the costs will increase with the income at the same time. As a result, the profits in the markets will not change.

To sum up, the writer gives a weak argument. To make it more credible, more information about the customer's trend to buy foods, and the accurate data of income and cost should be provided in this argument.

nortromUID: 2591367

The writer of the argument states that to increase profits in the markets we should begin to stock a full line of organic food products. To illustrate(illustrate是举例，是否考虑用support比较好) the statement the writer claims that the survey shows that people become more and more concern with the using in pesticides or preserving with chemicals, and 75percent of the local fare goers requested free samples of organic fruit. Scrutiny of the argument indicates the writer commit several fallacies.
First of all, the writer cites that the survey reveals that our customers concern more about the pesticides and chemicals than before. But this phenomenon does not mean the customers will turn to buy the organic food products. It is entirely possible that the price of the organic food will (is)higher than other food products. Owing to it cannot use pesticides, the production of the food will decrease, because some of the products will eaten by pests. And preserving without chemicals will surely decrease the preserve time, so more products may go to bad before it be (is)sold. Further, maybe customers just want to reduce the use of pesticides and chemicals in other kinds of food products. In a word, the survey cannot to(去掉) prove that customers will buy the organic food products.
In addition, it is apparently improper to regard the condition of the local fare as the condition of all other district. As people from different districts may have different attitude to food. The people in local area are fond of organic food product. But it may be not true in other areas. What is more, the writer fails to mention whether all the products displayed in the fare are free. If there is only the organic food products are free, for that matter, people are more likely to choose it. So it has nothing to do with the popularity of organic food.

Even assuming that the sales of the organic food will increase, it is unwarranted to conclude that the profits will increase as well. Common sense informs me the profits are determined by both costs and incomes. But there is little evidence show that the costs are stay in the same. It is possible that the costs will increase with the income at the same time. As a result, the profits in the markets will not change.
To sum up, the writer gives a weak argument. To make it more credible, more information about the customer's trend to buy foods, and the accurate data of income and cost should be provided in this argument.
写得不错，基本没什么好改