0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 by飘飘zly

飘飘zlyUID: 2200552

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.



In this argument, the president draws a conclusion that Wheat-O(W-O), new version product, should make more profit for the company and improve their customers' health. To support the conclusion, he make a contrast between ate soybeans subjects and ate no soy ones to indicate that the former had lower cholesterol. And he points out that the new product, W-O, could increase sales by the potential customers concerned about their health. A careful scrutiny of this argument could reveal several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, it is the unwarranted assumption that the soybeans makes subjects low cholesterol by contrast between subjects ate soybeans at least 5 times per week and no ate soy product ones. In this contrast, the subjects who ate soybeans maybe did not only make breakfast with soybeans, impossibly with other food, such as cheese, milk, apple and so on. These food maybe lead to significantly lower cholesterol level, comparing to subjects who ate no such food above. In the scientific method, the author should point out which elements of soybean result in the low cholesterol level. It is the way that the argument should be sound to support the conclusion.

Furthermore, the president fails to substantiate that the new version W-O with soy protein is healthy to customers. Even if soybeans could decrease the cholesterol level, he cannot equate the soybeans to soy protein, which are different from many factors. It is, in fact, entirely possible that soy protein contains high cholesterol in the new product, which is detrimental to their customers. Because the element of soybeans that make lower cholesterol is not included in soy protein, and maybe the soy protein has the new element with high cholesterol, or other unhealthy elements by fortifying W-O with soy protein. Without rule out these possibilities, it is unfound to point out that W-O should improve customers’ health.

Finally, even if the memo's author could substantiate the foregoing assumption, there is no evidence that the new product W-O could increase the company profit. The president expects that their company's new version W-O was appealed by additional consumers who pay the attentions to their health. The president make a unwarranted assumption that the consumers who are cared about their health should eager to buy the new products(W-O).It is entirely possible that these consumers are only concerned about the new products, or even draw more attentions whether the new W-O can be health to them ,and then, deciding whether to buy. It is no suggestion that the consumers can buy the new product of the company. Therefore, it is generally unsound that this new version W-O should improve company profit according to the memo.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the conclusion that the new W-O should improve the consumers' health, the president should provide the reliable evidence such as the customers can be more health by eating the new product. Or he should provide the list of the element of new product to substantiate that it is health. In addition, it is increasing the profit of the new W-O that was weaken by the fact that appealing to the consumers concerning about health. The president should provide the marketing survey of the potential consumers and of the sell performance which makes the argument unconvincing.

brisk1111UID: 2571604

In this argument, the president draws a conclusion that Wheat-O(W-O), new version product, should make more profit for the company and improve their customers' health. To support the conclusion, he make a contrast between ate soybeans subjects and ate no soy ones to indicate that the former had lower cholesterol. And he points out that the new product, W-O, could increase sales by the potential customers concerned about their health. A careful scrutiny of this argument could reveal several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, it is the unwarranted assumption that the soybeans makes subjects low cholesterol by contrast between subjects ate soybeans at least 5 times per week and no ate soy product ones. In this contrast, the subjects who ate soybeans maybe did not only make breakfast with soybeans, impossibly with other food, such as cheese, milk, apple and so on. These food maybe lead to significantly lower cholesterol level, comparing to subjects who ate no such food above.(这个范例举得有些牵强，不可能正好那些吃豆子的人吃了那些食物，而没吃豆子的人都没吃，而且举得食物也是非常常见的食物，没有说服力) In the scientific method, the author should point out which elements of soybean result in the low cholesterol level. It is the way that the argument should be sound to support the conclusion.

Furthermore, the president fails to substantiate that the new version W-O with soy protein is healthy to customers. Even if soybeans could decrease the cholesterol level, he cannot equate the soybeans to soy protein（两个换个位子吧，因为是强调的后者不可以等同于前者）, which are different from many factors. It is, in fact, entirely possible that soy protein contains high cholesterol in the new product, which is detrimental to their customers. Because the element of soybeans that make lower cholesterol is not included in soy protein, and maybe the soy protein has the new element with high cholesterol, or other unhealthy elements by fortifying W-O with soy protein.（感觉飘飘是不是没有搞清楚soy protein大豆蛋白与soybeans大豆之间的关系啊，大豆蛋白本身就只是一种成分，你可以说不是他的作用导致的低的胆固醇但不能说他还含有什么别的成分可以使胆固醇提高） Without rule out these possibilities, it is unfound to point out that W-O should improve customers’ health.

Finally, even if the memo's author could substantiate the foregoing assumption, there is no evidence that the new product W-O could increase the company profit. The president expects that their company's new version W-O was appealed by additional consumers(感觉这被动关系有问题，但是不敢确定) who pay the attentions to（pay attention to） their health. The president make a unwarranted assumption that the consumers who are cared about their health should eager to buy the new products(W-O).It is entirely possible that these consumers are only concerned about the new products, or even draw more attentions whether the new W-O can be health to them ,and then, deciding whether to buy. It is no suggestion that the consumers can buy the new product of the company. Therefore, it is generally unsound that this new version of W-O should improve company profit according to the memo.这一段就句子我读的有些纠结，觉得情态动词HE我平时的用法和表达的感情有些出入，我也不敢妄自的改，我感觉有问题的都标出来了，还有就是不知道version在这怎么用，而你好像都用了，文章中version后都加了OF)To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the conclusion that（不要） the new W-O should improve the consumers' health, (和下面重复)the president should provide the不要 reliable evidence such as the customers can be more health by eating the new product. Or he should provide the list of the elements of the new product to substantiate that it is health. In addition, it is increasing the profit of the new W-O that was weaken by the fact that appealing to the consumers concerning about health.看不通 The president should provide the marketing survey of the potential consumers and of the sell performance which（to） makes the argument unconvincing.（convincing）
这次审题和上次有些进步但还是有些欠缺，不知道有没有看中文的解释，文章的举例不够有说服力，句子也似乎不是很通（当然可能是我的水平有限），具体的都写在上面了，希望有些用。