[tsubasa] 第二次作业argument101 by muxinshuang

muxinshuangUID: 2258459

The evidences given by the president are not sufficient to conclusively support his suggestion which is actually based upon many ungrounded assumptions. The claim would be strengthened, if he can provide more detailed evidences to show the soy product has a clear effect on keeping lower cholesterol levels, to demonstrate the new product can attract more potential consumers for sure, to ensure the new product has a better quality which would accept by both original consumers, to substantiate that investment on the new product is more profitable than any other means of investment. Without such evidence, I have to say the president's claim is unconvincing and unreliable.

The result of the recent study is very problematic, and the information about this study given by the president is too limited to achieve a convinced conclusion. First, the "significantly lower" is very subjective claim and somehow meaningless, if he can not establish a control study with people who take regular food, to provide some detailed statistics to let us see how these consumer's levels of cholesterol are changed by taking soy products. Second, there is no any information mentioned the backgrounds of the subjects, the length of time of the study, the number of the subjects were surveyed, and so on. To ensure a reliability of the study, we have to be informed of this detailed information.

Moreover, I can not see any evidences to show the new product would attract more consumers other than the result of the study. Even if we concede that the soy product really has a good effect on keeping lower cholesterol levels, it still can not ensure the consumers would purchase the new and even can not ensure the original consumers would still like to use it. Clearly, numerous factors determine a choice of food product, such as price, taste, cuisine preference, and so on. Several variables may fail the president’s hope. For example, the potential consumers have no habit to consume cereals at their breakfast. Or the new product may change the taste of the current product a lot. If so, it would not attract new consumers but lessen the consumption of original consumers..

In addition, I can not see any evidence to show the new version of Wheat-O is more profitable. The president should give us evidence to show the cost on the new product will be very economical, will attract an ideal number of new consumers, will ensure a clear profit. Clearly, without such evidences, it is very reasonable to suspect that: the cost of the product may be too high to afford by the company; the price of the new product may be too high to accept by the consumers. If so, the president's suggestion would absolutely fail.

All in all, the president's suggestion should be strengthened by more clear and sufficient evidences to show there is a direct causal relation between the result of the study and the profit of producing a new product. Without such evidences, we'd better not accept his idea.

cnwzlyUID: 2634423

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.(前提) This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers."（结论）



The evidences given by the president are not sufficient to conclusively support his suggestion which is actually based upon many ungrounded assumptions. The claim would be strengthened, if he can provide more detailed evidences to show the soy product has a clear effect on keeping lower cholesterol levels, to demonstrate the new product can attract more potential consumers for sure, to ensure the new product has a better quality which would accept by both original consumers, to substantiate that investment on the new product is more profitable than any other means of investment. Without such evidence, I have to（被迫说的？？） say the president's claim is unconvincing and unreliable.还没有批，怎么就提建议了。。。

The result of the recent study is very problematic, and the information about this study given by the president is too limited to achieve a convinced conclusion. First, the "significantly lower" is very subjective claim and somehow meaningless, if he can not establish a control study with people who take regular food, to provide some detailed statistics to let us see how these consumer's levels of cholesterol are changed by taking soy products. Second, there is no any information mentioned the backgrounds of the subjects, the length of time of the study, the number of the subjects were surveyed, and so on. To ensure a reliability of the study, we have to be informed of this detailed information. （可以看看君子之辩，感觉挺不错）

Moreover, I can not see any evidences to show the new product would attract more consumers other than the result of the study.（显得太主观了，语句，而且后半句不知意思） Even if we concede that the soy product really has a good effect on keeping lower cholesterol levels, it still can not ensure the consumers would purchase the new and even can not ensure the original consumers would still like to use it. Clearly, numerous factors determine a choice of food product（表达有问题）, such as price, taste, cuisine preference, and so on. Several variables may fail the president’s hope. For example, the potential consumers have no habit to consume cereals at their breakfast. Or the new product may change the taste of the current product a lot. If so, it would not attract new consumers but lessen the consumption of original consumers..逻辑有点问题了。。前面已经举过例子了，不知道这举反例是为什么，而且没看出递进关系啊

In addition, I can not see any evidence to show the new version of Wheat-O is more profitable.尽量换点表达方式，而且怎么不觉得盈利也没表述出来 The president should give us evidence to show the cost on the new product will be very economical, will attract an ideal number of new consumers, will ensure a clear profit. Clearly, without such evidences, it is very reasonable to suspect that: the cost of the product may be too high to afford by the company; the price of the new product may be too high to accept by the consumers. If so, the president's suggestion would absolutely fail.

All in all, the president's suggestion should be strengthened by more clear and sufficient evidences to show there is a direct causal relation between the result of the study and the profit of producing a new product. Without such evidences, we'd better not accept his idea.

希望楼主可以看看那些精华帖，帮助很大的