【Try Best】第一小组 argument101 by 小红莓

小红莓UID：2641349

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."

This memo concludes that Wheat-O should increase company profits and improve the health of their customers. To support this claim the president cites a recent study in which subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had lower cholesterol levels that those who ate no soy products. The memo also points out that company can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the study that the argument cites is potentially problematic in two aspects. First, the arguer fails to provide any information that soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels. Second, there may be something else that reduces cholesterol levels of subjects because the subjects could not eat only soy products everyday. Lacking these evidences the arguer could not convince me.

Even though the soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels, the arguer fails to convince me that lower cholesterol levels means healthier. It's entirely possible that lower cholesterol level is a sign of unhealthiness. The memo also fails to account for the possibility that lower cholesterol levels may cause many other diseases. Without accounting for these possibilities, the president of the company cannot justifiably conclude that the lower cholesterol levels the better.

Even though the soybeans are good for health, Wheat-O may not be popular by consumers because of the taste, packing, advertisement or price. To increase sales the company may take many reasons into consideration. Thus, the argument's conclusion is indefensible to this extent.

In sum, the argument is weak on several grounds. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence that soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels and that is good for health. Moreover, the arguer must also have more information about the consumers' need for foodstuff.

cababoUID：2648869

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."

This memo concludes that Wheat-O should increase company profits and improve the health of their customers. To support this claim the president cites a recent study in which subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had lower cholesterol levels that (than)those who ate no soy products. The memo also points out that company can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the study that the argument cites is potentially problematic in two aspects. First, the arguer fails to provide any information that soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels. Second, there may be something else that reduces cholesterol levels of subjects because the subjects could not eat only soy products everyday. Lacking these evidences the arguer could not convince me.

Even though (if) the soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels, the arguer fails to convince me that lower cholesterol levels means healthier. It's entirely possible that lower cholesterol level is a sign of unhealthiness. The memo also fails to account for the possibility that lower cholesterol levels may cause many other ?? diseases. Without accounting for these possibilities, the president of the company cannot justifiably conclude that the lower cholesterol levels the better.

Even though the soybeans are good for health, Wheat-O may not be popular by consumers because of the taste, packing, advertisement or price. To increase sales the company may take many reasons into consideration. Thus, the argument's conclusion is indefensible to this extent.

In sum, the argument is weak on several grounds. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence that soybeans could reduce cholesterol levels and that is good for health. Moreover, the arguer must also have more information about the consumers' need for foodstuff.