0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 by xoxlol

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

argument 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.
拍死我吧 谢谢！

The author suggested that this cereal company should add soy protein into Wheat-O cereal to improve customers' health and increase profit by attracting more health-concerned consumers. To support this point, result of a recent study has been provided. This argument seems plausible at the first glance, but a close examination reveals its logical flaws and invalidity.

To begin with, the fact that people who ate soybeans at least five times per week had lower cholesterol than those who ate no soy product does not necessarily imply soybean is effective to lower cholesterol. The study only shows a comparison of soybean consuming frequence between at least five times per week and none, which raises the suspicion that eating soybeans less than five times per week may cause no impact on cholesterol level. Moreover, no information about the diet of these two groups of people has been given. Thereby if soybean is not the only difference in their diet, it is possible that it is not soybean but other food helped lower cholesterol level. Thus, unless further research or more information has been provided, the conclusion that soybean lowers cholesterol level is unwarranted at best.

Assumingly, soybean could lower cholesterol level, but that does not directly lead to the result of sale increase by adding soy protein in product. An obvious fallacy here is equating soy protein with soybean. No evidence shows it is the soy protein lowers cholesterol level, since there are so many other ingredients included in soybean. Subsequently, consumers will not be convinced and may not choose Wheat-O. Also, low cholesterol is not the only factor contributing to human health, and most health conscious customers may consider other health related factors, or even do not care about lowering cholesterol at all if they are already at a healthy level. Meanwhile, author failed to take competitors into account. There may be other cereal companies also providing cholesterol lowering products, but with better taste, lower price, appealing package and better service. In short, adding soy protein may be unable to achieve the result of sale increase since the author failed to consider many sale-related factors.

Last, even the sale will surely increase, it is insufficient to predict the outcome of gaining more profit and improving customers’ health. Since adding soy protein into product means more production cost, which may not be surpassed or even covered by profit from additional sale. Therefore, increasing profit is not a certainty. On the other hand, as far as customers' health was concerned, there are numerous factors such as diet, lifestyle, profession and mental condition all relating to a person's health and normal cholesterol level is just one, not even a determining one, element of human health. Hence, the assumption that eating new version of Wheat-O cereal will improve people's health is ungrounded.

In sum, to prevent a hasty conclusion, further study of the effectiveness of soybean at lowering cholesterol is in need and so many sale and profit relating factors have to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, the author would have made a poor suggestion, which is unconvincing and even misleading.