argument101=so what=第5次作业 by fengrui129

fengrui129UID: 2639927

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.'

1调查可靠么，没数据也没百分比，还有可能，这项调查正是那家公司弄的，这时候就不公正，从利益出发
2 胆固醇指数真的就和吃豆制品有关么，也许那些人在此期间吃的别的什么东西引起的
2 强加因果，通过吸引关注健康的人群购买产品 一定能增加收益么？也许原有消费群本身就是一些关注健康的人，再有  关注健康的人一定就会买他们的产品么
3 利润和成本挂钩，也许增加蛋白质会大大提高成本，不赚反赔

8：40开始   
9:24  结束      字数：560

fengrui129UID: 2639927

In this memo, the author recommends that the new vision of Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the customers’ health as well. To substantiate the recommendation, the author points out that adding soy protein make the products become preferable in health-oriented people’s eyes. A survey also cited by the writer indicating that eating soybeans benefit people’s health. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited here amounts to scant evidence that eating soybeans is really beneficial, for it provides neither the specific numbers of interviewees nor the relative percentage of those people. And it mentions nothing about the lasting time of this survey, there exist the possibility that this survey only lasted for a month! Thus this survey is statistically unconvincing. Even more, perhaps this survey is conducted by the company itself, in this way, the outcome of the survey is highly likely to mingle with the interviewer’s personal perspective based on the fact that they must do on the behalf of the company’s profits. In a word, this survey is far from being useful.

Secondly, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the level of the cholesterol and the frequency of eating soy beans. It is highly possible other facts may have contributed to the significantly lower cholesterol levels. For instance, those people may eat other food, which potentially influence the cholesterol level. Beside, this phenomenon is bound up with individual’s lifestyle. Accordingly, the author’s assertion is unilateral.

Thirdly, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein not necessarily imply that they can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. It is entirely possible that their patrons are health-oriented people, and therefore, it is useless to attract such kind of people by adopting this measure. What is more, common sense informs us that not all the people who lay much emphasis on health are willing to purchase their products, for they believe that those products are useless and contribute nothing to their health. For that matter, or perhaps the price of this product is too high that most people cannot afford despite the fact that they do pay much attention to health. Without ruling out those possible factors, the author’s viewpoint cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the author’s assumption that protein-adding-products are profitable is dubious and indefensible. As is known to all, profit is the function of both revenue and expenses. The author may overlook the possibility that by adding soybeans protein enhance the cost enormously and the extent to which the cost is added is far more than the original cost. Under such circumstances, the company has no alternative but to increase the price, consequently, people find those products are beyond their assumed price and the products become less preferable. Without weighing expenses against revenue, the author’s cannot safely conclude that the company will profit from the new products.

In conclusion, the editor’s recommendation is unacceptable and unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster this argument the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey with precise and detailed information. The author also has to render convincing evidence showing that adding protein is closely related to the boost of the selling. To better access the argument, I would need to know the specific revenue and cost of the product.

米丽水UID: 2637300

In this memo, the author recommends that the new vision of Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the customers’ health as well. To substantiate the recommendation, the author points out that adding soy protein make the products become preferable in health-oriented people’s eyes. A survey also cited by the writer indicates that eating soybeans benefit people’s health. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited here amounts to scant evidence that eating soybeans is really beneficial, for it provides neither the specific numbers of interviewees nor the relative percentage of those people. And it mentions nothing about the lasting time of this survey, there exist the possibility that this survey only lasted for a month! Thus this survey is statistically unconvincing. Even more, perhaps this survey is conducted by the company itself, in this way, the outcome of the survey is highly likely to mingle with the interviewer’s personal perspective based on the fact that they must do on the behalf of the company’s profits. In a word, this survey is far from being useful.

Secondly, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the level of the cholesterol and the frequency of eating soy beans. It is highly possible other facts may have contributed to the significantly lower cholesterol levels. For instance, those people may eat other food, which potentially influence the cholesterol level. Beside, this phenomenon is bound up with individual’s lifestyle. Accordingly, the author’s assertion is unilateral.

Thirdly, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein not necessarily imply that they can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. It is entirely possible that their patrons are health-oriented people, and therefore, it is useless to attract such kind of people by adopting this measure. What is more, common sense informs us that not all the people who lay much emphasis on health are willing to purchase their products, for they believe that those products are useless and contribute nothing to their health. For that matter, or perhaps the price of this product is too high that most people cannot afford despite the fact that they do pay much attention to health. Without ruling out those possible factors, the author’s viewpoint cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the author’s assumption that protein-adding-products are profitable is dubious and indefensible. As is known to all, profit is the function of both revenue and expenses. The author may overlook the possibility that by adding soybeans protein enhance the cost enormously and the extent to which the cost is added is far more than the original cost. Under such circumstances, the company has no alternative but to increase the price, consequently, people find those products are beyond their assumed price and the products become less preferable. Without weighing expenses against revenue, the author’s cannot safely conclude that the company will profit from the new products.

In conclusion, the editor’s recommendation is unacceptable and unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster this argument the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey with precise and detailed information. The author also has to render convincing evidence showing that adding protein is closely related to the boost of the selling. To better access the argument, I would need to know the specific revenue and cost of the product.
很好，受教了。

linyan821230UID: 2638813

In this memo, the author recommends that the new vision of Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the customers’ health as well. To substantiate the recommendation, the author points out that adding soy protein (will) make the products become preferable in health-oriented people’s eyes. A survey (is) also cited by the writer indicating that eating soybeans (can/will) benefit people’s health. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited here amounts to scant evidence that eating soybeans is really beneficial (不太理解), for it provides neither the specific numbers of interviewees nor the relative percentage of those people (哪些people? Those people who believe themselves in benefiting from soybeans). And it mentions nothing about the lasting time of this survey, there exist the possibility (重新分一句，两个谓语，或者with the existing possibility) that this survey only lasted for a month! Thus this survey is statistically unconvincing. Even more, perhaps this survey is conducted by the company itself, in this way, (另一句了) the outcome of the survey is highly likely to mingle with the interviewer’s personal perspective based on the fact that they must do on the behalf of the company’s profits. In a word, this survey is far from being useful.

Secondly, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the level of the cholesterol and the frequency of eating soy beans. It is highly possible other facts may have contributed to the significantly lower cholesterol levels. For instance, those people may eat other food, which potentially influence (influences) the cholesterol level. Beside, this phenomenon is bound up with individual’s lifestyle. Accordingly, the author’s assertion is unilateral.

Thirdly, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein not necessarily imply that they can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. It is entirely possible that their patrons are health-oriented people, and therefore, it is useless to attract such kind of people by adopting this measure. What is more, common sense informs us that not all the people who lay much emphasis on health are willing to purchase their products, for they believe that those products are useless and contribute nothing to their health. For that matter, or perhaps the price of this product is too high that most people cannot afford despite the fact that they do pay much attention to health. Without ruling out those possible factors, the author’s viewpoint cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the author’s assumption that protein-adding-products are profitable is dubious and indefensible. As is known to all, profit is the function of both revenue and expenses. The author may overlook the possibility that by adding soybeans protein enhance the cost enormously and the extent to which the cost is added is far more than the original cost. Under such circumstances, the company has no alternative but to increase the price, consequently, people find those products are beyond their assumed price and the products become less preferable. Without weighing expenses against revenue, the author’s cannot safely conclude that the company will profit from the new products.

In conclusion, the editor’s recommendation is unacceptable and unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster this argument the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey with precise and detailed information. The author also has to render convincing evidence showing that adding protein is closely related to the boost of the selling. To better access (assess) the argument, I would need to know the specific revenue and cost of the product.

不理解amount to scant evidence和bound up的意思，可以给我解释一下吗？

fengrui129UID: 2639927

蓝色是我的回复
In this memo, the author recommends that the new vision of Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the customers’ health as well. To substantiate the recommendation, the author points out that adding soy protein (will) make the products become preferable in health-oriented people’s eyes. A survey (is) also cited by the writer indicating that eating soybeans (can/will) benefit people’s health. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited here amounts to scant evidence that eating soybeans is really beneficial (不太理解), (这项调查缺乏证据去证明吃豆子真的有益健康)for it provides neither the specific numbers of interviewees nor the relative percentage of those people (哪些people? （people当然是interviewees ）Those people who believe themselves in benefiting from soybeans). And it mentions nothing about the lasting time of this survey, there exist the possibility (重新分一句，两个谓语，或者with the existing possibility)（There exists the possibility=It is entirely possible that 是正确的用法） that this survey only lasted for a month! Thus this survey is statistically unconvincing. Even more, perhaps this survey is （is 是不需要的， 这里conducted=which was conduceted）conducted by the company itself, in this way, (另一句了) the outcome of the survey is highly likely to mingle with the interviewer’s personal perspective based on the fact that they must do on the behalf of the company’s profits. In a word, this survey is far from being useful.

Secondly, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the level of the cholesterol and the frequency of eating soy beans. It is highly possible other facts may have contributed to the significantly lower cholesterol levels. For instance, those people may eat other food, which potentially influence (influences) the cholesterol level. Beside, this phenomenon is bound up with individual’s lifestyle. Accordingly, the author’s assertion is unilateral.

Thirdly, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein not necessarily imply that they can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. It is entirely possible that their patrons are health-oriented people, and therefore, it is useless to attract such kind of people by adopting this measure. What is more, common sense informs us that not all the people who lay much emphasis on health are willing to purchase their products, for they believe that those products are useless and contribute nothing to their health. For that matter, or perhaps the price of this product is too high that most people cannot afford despite the fact that they do pay much attention to health. Without ruling out those possible factors, the author’s viewpoint cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the author’s assumption that protein-adding-products are profitable is dubious and indefensible. As is known to all, profit is the function of both revenue and expenses. The author may overlook the possibility that by adding soybeans protein enhance the cost enormously and the extent to which the cost is added is far more than the original cost. Under such circumstances, the company has no alternative but to increase the price, consequently, people find those products are beyond their assumed price and the products become less preferable. Without weighing expenses against revenue, the author’s cannot safely conclude that the company will profit from the new products.

In conclusion, the editor’s recommendation is unacceptable and unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster this argument the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey with precise and detailed information. The author also has to render convincing evidence showing that adding protein is closely related to the boost of the selling. To better access (assess) the argument, I would need to know the specific revenue and cost of the product.

不理解amount to scant evidence和bound up的意思，可以给我解释一下吗？
amount to scant evidence  意味着证据缺乏   be bound up with = be closely related to

ZhouPYFUID: 2633778

In this memo, the author recommends that the new vision of Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the customers’ health as well. To substantiate the recommendation, the author points out that adding soy protein make the products become preferable in health-oriented people’s eyes. A survey also cited by the writer indicating that eating soybeans benefit people’s health. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited here amounts to scant evidence that eating soybeans is really beneficial, for it provides neither the specific numbers of interviewees nor the relative percentage of those people. And it mentions nothing about the lasting time of this survey, there exist the possibility that this survey only lasted for a month! Thus this survey is statistically unconvincing. Even more, perhaps this survey is conducted by the company itself, in this way, the outcome of the survey is highly likely to mingle with the interviewer’s personal perspective based on the fact that they must do on the behalf of the company’s profits. In a word, this survey is far from being useful.
别的都没有问题，就是原文是个study不是survey…..

Secondly, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the level of the cholesterol and the frequency of eating soy beans. It is highly possible other facts may have contributed to the significantly lower cholesterol levels. For instance, those people may eat other food, which potentially influence the cholesterol level. Beside, this phenomenon is bound up with individual’s lifestyle. Accordingly, the author’s assertion is unilateral.

Thirdly, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein not necessarily imply that they can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. It is entirely possible that their patrons are health-oriented people, and therefore, it is useless to attract such kind of people by adopting this measure. What is more, common sense informs us that not all the people who lay much emphasis on health are willing to purchase their products, for they believe that those products are useless and contribute nothing to their health. For that matter, or perhaps the price of this product is too high that most people cannot afford despite the fact that they do pay much attention to health. Without ruling out those possible factors, the author’s viewpoint cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the author’s assumption that protein-adding-products are profitable is dubious and indefensible. As is known to all, profit is the function of both revenue and expenses. The author may overlook the possibility that by adding soybeans protein enhance the cost enormously and the extent to which the cost is added is far more than the original cost. Under such circumstances, the company has no alternative but to increase the price, consequently, people find those products are beyond their assumed price and the products become less preferable. Without weighing expenses against revenue, the author’s cannot safely conclude that the company will profit from the new products.

In conclusion, the editor’s recommendation is unacceptable and unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster this argument the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey with precise and detailed information. The author also has to render convincing evidence showing that adding protein is closely related to the boost of the selling. To better access the argument, I would need to know the specific revenue and cost of the product.

用词造句我就不夸了，纯学习中。
另外：
段与段之间是否可以有一种递进的关系
比如首先质疑蛋白质的有效性
然后让步承认就算有效，也不一定会增加销量