0910G【try best】第二组 第四次作业 argument101 by seraphy1986

seraphy1986UID: 2629743

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."
WORDS: 522
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-6-21 10:00:12

In this argument, the president states that a recent study shows that subjects who ate soybeans more than five times per weekhad lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. So the president comes to the conclusion that in order to increase company profits by increasing sales, the company should fortify Wheat-O cereal with soy protein. The president also says that this action could also improve the health of the customers. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the study doesn't establish a causal relationship between eating soybeans frequently and lower cholesterol level. The other differents between two groups may explain the different cholesterol levels except for the habit of eating soybeans. The two group might be different in the preference of taking exercise, eating vegetables and the age of these two groups may be different, too. Not knowing these details of study, we could not trust the result of study.

Secondly, even though eating soybeans could cause lower cholesterol level, the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein would have the same effect as the soybeans is open to doubt. The effective part of soybean is soy protein is unwarranted. The argument simply equate the function of soybean with that of food with soy protein which is ungrounded.

Thirdly, granted that eating Wheat-O cereal could reduce cholestrol, there is no envidence to show that consumers who are concerned about their health would like to purchase Wheat-O cereal. They may choose other methods to maintain their health, such as sustaining happiness, taking more exercise, reducing the times of eating fast food and so on. They may also choose ther food to keep healthy, for example, taking milk, eating vegetables and fruit, or the consumers will take more soybeans or other food containing soy proteins instead of Wheat-O cereal. What’s more, the arguer don’t tell the diseases caused by high level of cholestrol, and we have no reason to believe that food which will reduce the cholestrol will draw the consumers’ attention. Not all consumers suffers from the cholesterol disease. So fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein would increase the sales and profits of the company is unfounded.

Finally, the president does not analyze the cost of the proposed change. Adding more soy protein to the food needs to add more soybeans,then the methods of producing food may need change. And this proposition may need more input of manpower. In the end, this action might cost a lot that the profits though increasing sales are not guaranteed. Furthermore, adding soy protein to the Wheat-O may lead to negative effect. The brand has been remembered by the customers. The change of the food will probably make some of the fans of the food lost.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must provide envidences that wheat-o cereal with soy protein and soybeans has the same effect on the low level of cholestrol. To solidify the argument, the arguer needs to produce more concrete
information about the study and the cost estimation. Without these support, the president’s view is unconvicing and not well reasoned.