Argument101 =so what=小组第五次作业 by xoxlol

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

aw

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

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.

最近的一项研究显示，同那些没有吃大豆的人相比，每周至少吃五次大豆的人的胆固醇含量明显下降。通过向我们的Wheat-O 中加入大豆蛋白质，我们可以吸引那些关注他们健康的消费者，从而增加销售。新版本的Wheat-0 在增加公司利润的同时，可以提高我们的消费者的健康。

提纲：
1.survey: what about least than 5 times per week?
2. add prtein > increase sale
3. more sale > more profit

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

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.

米丽水UID: 2637300

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, the 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 that soybean is effective to lower cholesterol. The study only shows a comparison of soybean consuming frequency between at least five times per week and none（这个句子不是特别通顺）, 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 have 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 这个短语删去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 (我觉得这样is just one element of human health, not even a determining one). 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.
不错。学习，思路清晰，论述完整。
大侠有时间也帮我看看？https://bbs.gter.net/thread-976616-1-1.html

xwloveUID: 2481588

修改ing

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 that（强调句吗？掉了that） 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 if （掉了if吗？）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.

哎呀，这就是范文啊

作者已经练到出神入化

作者将A的逻辑错误层层剖解，攻击顺序合理，论证有力；遣词造句，游刃有余！

没得说的了，~\(≧▽≦)/~

很想跟作者交流一下你的argument思想，指导一下迷路的偶吧%>_<%

2006201652UID: 2496703

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（学习！） at the first glance, but a close examination reveals its logical flaws and invalidity.

To begin with, the fact(fact后边用一般现在时吧？虽然是引用的题目里的，但是毕竟是事实) 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.攻击调查，次数不一定导致胆固醇降低，还有食谱有可能有差异。

Assumingly, soybean could lower cholesterol level, but that does not directly lead to the result of sale increase by adding soy protein in product.（让步式攻击，不错！） An obvious fallacy here is equating soy protein with soybean.（感觉这儿用个倒装也不错here is an obvious fallacy that equates 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(对不？) 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. （CP不是CB，赞！）

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.（让步式攻击，作者运用的不错，值得学习！我老不会让步攻击呢:L ）

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.

1.文章写得不错！攻击点全面，用得让步式攻击很好，偶感觉这篇文章用让步式攻击这么好，别的更没有问题哦.
2.文章没有什么大问题，继续加油！

2006201652UID: 2496703

:loveliness:

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

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.
紧扣提纲，对study的分析有深度，语言多变，没有明显的语法错误。
本段应该是对soy product 的effective 上的论述
1.
comparison→suspicion
2. difference in their diet
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（ that ）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.
紧扣提纲，他因法 影响sales增加的因素 1 soy protein 2. low cholesterol是不是人们关注的焦点3.竞争者
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.
sales≠profit
他因法  成本； 2
health 的关注

建议：对于健康的关注 我觉得作者的展开不insight
因为作者只是针对cholesterol level not even a determining one 首先 原文中 并没有出现他是决定性的因素  而作者在此探讨 是无中生有

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.
PS：
作者的英语基础似乎很深厚
原文结构严谨
而且有一定的展开
逻辑性强