Argument101 By tracywlz

tracywlzUID：2522388

"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."

For the sake of finding a feasible way to gain profits, the author, president of a breakfast cereals company, consulting a recent study with no further details, and even irrelevant cite its statistics. Moreover, he unfairly equates two disrelated things. And at last, he educes his seemed perfect suggestion from all the former suspicious illations which are untenable after carefulness consideration.

In the beginning, a recent study without any particular depictions becomes the author's demonstrative foundation. Do the study have sufficient and broad amount of subjects to educe to the result? And do the subjects' health condition nearly the same when they are enlisted in this study? Does the experimental group share same conditions with the control group just except eating soybeans? And how can the author treat soybeans and soy products as a same thing when comparing of the two subjects? All of these question can not be solved by the author's statement, In short, the author begins his ratiocination from a questionable survey.

Moreover, the author argues that by fortifying soy protein in his company's products, the healthy care public would be fetched, and the sales would be increased as a result. Nevertheless, we ought to concentrate on the title, the company is about breakfast cereals and that means even they equip their products with soy protein, how can they have the confidence that healthy care group will surely buy their new products? This statement is scarcity of some vital measures to let this assumption implement. In addition, it is more likely that the healthy care public is not willing to eating breakfast with cereals, or else their have enough soy protein in their meals so it is no use to buy soy protein additional cereal. Meanwhile, the study is about soybeans, and the measures is about soy protein, do these two things totally the same when comes to people's health issue? In balance, thinking from the potential aim customers and the product itself, we, readers, cannot conclude the same excellent conclusion as the author says.
      
Thirdly, the author depicts a charming visual from his former deductions. The profits will increase, and the customers healthy condition will be ameliorate. After carefully reading, we may find out that the author regards sales and profits as a same thing, together with buying products and improving healthy. Those two series of things are totally parallel concept. The increasing sales do not mean an increasing in profits; more people choosing to buy their product have no affiliation with healthy condition improving. The profits would be low if the cost of additive soy protein were higher than the increasing sales' gain, and the customers may not know the appropriate eating habits of these products, thus it may not result in their healthy improvement. Therefore, the summarization could be a inaccuracy one as a lack of some possibility analysis.

In sum, although the author's proposal is fascinating, a scale number of indelible logic mistakes make this statement questionable

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

Mark~ 晚点来拜读水水滴大作~ 哇咔咔 >3< 嘿嘿

tracywlzUID：2522388

大作？~~:L
还是红字多多吧。唉。

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

水水的这篇，开头3句跟接下来的3段一一对应，先赞一个~

每一段的TS都很trenchant，再赞一个~

基本上，我可以跟你一起等待66啦~ 嘿嘿~ 话说66期待的逃过一半红色的A。。说不定要粗现了。。

lucarlUID：2616426

第一次改水水的文章，好忐忑，怕说错。


改完发现家家说水水的TS很完美，我还bla bla 说那么多坏话，我太恶毒了。。。anyway，水水你选择性接受吧，说的不对千万别丢我鸡蛋啊~


哦，对了，蓝色是好词~【巴结状】


"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."

For the sake of finding a feasible way to gain profits, the author, president of a breakfast cereals company, consulting a recent study with no further details, and even irrelevant cite its statistics. Moreover, he unfairly equates two disrelated things. And at last, he educes his seemed perfect suggestion from all the former suspicious illations which are untenable after carefulness consideration.

In the beginning, a recent study without any particular depictions becomes the author's demonstrative foundation. Do the study have sufficient and broad amount of subjects to educe to the result? 攻击样本数量 And do the subjects' health condition nearly the same when they are enlisted in this study? 攻击样本初始状态 Does the experimental group share same conditions with the control group just except eating soybeans? 攻击实验过程中的“变量恒定”问题And how can the author treat soybeans and soy products as a same thing when comparing of the two subjects? All of these questions can not be solved by the author's statement. In short, the author begins his ratiocination from a questionable survey.


上面三个问句，都在攻击做这个study的人脑残哦~难道被ETS文章中引用过来的调查s都是专门选出来的脑残调查吗？咱们不能这么不厚道，总怀疑鬼子的智商（尽管确实有点不高-_-哈哈）。
水水有米有看草草大人和66版关于A中攻击调查的帖子？我看了，觉得收获很大哦。（可能我被洗脑了？汗-_-）。
给出链接：
草草：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=968840&highlight
66：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=927873&highlight

Moreover, the author argues that by fortifying soy protein in his company's products, the healthy care public would be fetched, and the sales would be increased as a result.抓到啦~完全是restate题干的TS句哦，不应该。咱得明确指出自己要攻击哪一点，呃，具体~ Nevertheless, we ought to concentrate on the title, the company is about breakfast cereals and that means even they equip their products with soy protein, how can they have the confidence that healthy care group will surely buy their new products? This statement is scarcity of some vital measures to let this assumption implement. In addition, it is more likely that the healthy care public（呃，这个表达我体会了好久，是说“关心健康的人们”吧？。有点不对味儿哦。鬼子比较笨，看不懂很正常哈）
is not willing to eating breakfast with cereals为什么人们不愿意？是因为下面or else后面的内容吗？那就直接because~, or else their have enough soy protein in their meals so it is no use to buy soy protein additional cereal. Meanwhile, the study is about soybeans, and the measures is about soy protein, do these two things totally the same when comes to people's health issue? In balance, thinking from the potential aim customers and the product itself, we, readers, cannot conclude the same excellent conclusion as the author says.


Thirdly, the author depicts a charming visual from his former deductions. 没有一个实质性的字眼告诉rater你要攻击什么了。The profits will increase, and the customers healthy condition will be ameliorate. After carefully reading, we may find out that the author regards sales and profits as a same thing, together with buying products and improving healthy. Those two series of things are totally parallel concept. The increasing sales do not mean an increasing in profits; more people choosing to buy their product have no affiliation with healthy condition improving. The profits would be low if the cost of additive soy protein were higher than the increasing sales' gain, and the customers may not know the appropriate eating habits of these products其实我看到这句之前一直以为你要说“人们买了也不一定会吃的”，结果是“不知道怎么吃”。。。anyway，这两个都不是好他因。因为它们推不出“作者得不出自己的结论”。如果咱们说没有improve people’s health是因为人们没有appropriately eat the products的话，就是潜意识承认这个products能够improve health了，只不过人们没用好而已。那不是自己砸自己的脚么。。。, thus it may not result in their healthy improvement. Therefore, the summarization could be a inaccuracy one as a lack of some possibility analysis.


现在回来说本段TS句的事儿。假设蓝色加粗是正确的他因，那么TS句中要具体提到它。这样：Thirdly, though more sales could be attained, the investment on development of the new WO cereals may affect the total profits. 不过这么一来就把咱们原来段中间要说的话给提前说出来了，所以才要求咱们做到进一步展开嘛。就因为展开比较难，所以大家才选择在TS中说一些无关痛痒的话，然后段中间一笔带过出现的问题，后面再补上一些无营养的话，一个貌似漂亮的段落就出来了。呵呵。

In sum, although the author's proposal is fascinating, a scale number of indelible logic mistakes make this statement questionable

最后。水水的结尾是我很喜欢的简练风格~话说ets从来对结尾不做过多评价，所以将宝贵的时间放在中间部分很重要哈~
另外，要膜拜一下水水的用词，好多我都需要查dictionary，汗。【旁白】：单词都没背熟，还有脸来改作文。

tracywlzUID：2522388

好多我都是在查了某词霸后改的~汗
继续
这些东西都是在我Bt考试时候的。感觉从没看过~~呜呜

irvine666UID：2575525

"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." For the sake of finding a feasible way to gain profits, the author, president of a breakfast cereals company, consulting a recent study with no further details, and even irrelevant cite its statistics. Moreover, he unfairly equates two disrelated things（这个还是要写出来的，比如equates A with B）. And at last, he educes his seemed perfect suggestion from all the former suspicious illations which are untenable after carefulness consideration. In the beginning, a recent study without any particular depictions becomes the author's demonstrative foundation. Do the study have sufficient and broad amount of subjects to educe to the result?（这句话有两个问题：1.author不是用amount of subjects推断出的result，所以你用了逻辑跳跃；2.你提到了amount这个东西，实际上这句话的作用和the survey might fail to have a sufficient sample pool一个作用，唯一的不同就是显得更加有吸引力，但是insufficient amount到底是如何影响作者结论的正确性的？这个问题你并没有回答，仅仅是在最后笼统的说：all of these questions can not... 这个是不足够insightful的） And do the subjects' health condition nearly the same(对于一个survey里面的对比来讲，其实更严谨的是：“用了这个东西以后跟自己以前没用它的时候的对比”，而不是“接近情况相同的两人如何如何对比”) when they are enlisted in this study? Does the experimental group share same conditions with the control group（我可以理解为这些same conditions 当中包括health condition么？那么就跟你的第二问重复了。） just except eating soybeans? And how can the author treat soybeans and soy products as a same thing when comparing of the two subjects?（找得点不错，不过还需要深入论述一下你认为soybeans和 soy products到底有什么区别，不要让读者自己去想象。） All of these question can not be solved by the author's statement, In short, the author begins his ratiocination from a questionable survey. Moreover, the author argues that by fortifying soy protein in his company's products, the healthy care public would be fetched, and the sales would be increased as a result. Nevertheless,（前面这一堆东西基本都是在restate,楼上指出来了，可以直接拿出观点就好，改成more soy protein contained in the company's products does not necessarily mean that the customers would be more willing to buy them.） we ought to concentrate on the title, the company is about breakfast cereals and that means even they equip their products with soy protein, how can they have the confidence that healthy care group will surely buy their new products?(这个从句的两个分句连接的很不顺畅，跳跃性过大了) This statement is scarcity of some vital measures to let this assumption implement. In addition, it is more likely that the healthy care public（这是啥？） is not willing to eating breakfast with cereals（你觉得这种可能性大么？明明是小概率事件，怎么能说more likely?）, or else their have enough soy protein in their meals so（这个so前后的逻辑也不是直接性的，而是经过了很多步隐含推理，这里又是逻辑跳跃） it is no use to buy soy protein additional cereal. Meanwhile, the study is about soybeans, and the measures is about soy protein, do these two things totally the same when comes to people's health issue?（你这段话里面讨论的主要东西是消费者的倾向，如果你一定要说这个问题，最好另开一段） In balance, thinking from the potential aim customers and the product itself, we, readers, cannot conclude the same excellent conclusion as the author says.        Thirdly, the author depicts a charming visual（visual如果我没记错应该是个adj） from his former deductions（TS句仔细读了2遍仍然不知道你批的到底是啥...先看下文好了）. The profits will increase, and the customers healthy condition will be ameliorate.(不清楚这个句子跟上下文有什么关联，看起来好像是depicts...的同位语？) After carefully reading, we may find out that（A的论述段落里面不需要这种话，简洁，直接，打中要害才是句子的要求） the author regards sales and profits as a same thing, together with buying products and improving healthy. Those two series of things are totally parallel concept（paraellel concept又是个什么东西？有什么特征？你直接说两个东西无联系就行了，用这种所谓的“中式高深表达”不但会误导人，也会显得你思维有问题。老米可没兴趣去慢慢领会你的“言外之意”，对他们来说，无法直接理解的东西就是看不懂的东西，他们看不懂，你就悲剧了～）. The increasing sales do not mean an increasing in profits（why?马上接着解释一下会更好，不要先插一句无关论述再开始）; more people choosing to buy their product have no affiliation with（关于这点，你自己能否说服自己？） healthy condition improving. The profits would be low if the cost of additive soy protein were higher than the increasing sales' gain, and the customers may not know the appropriate eating habits of these products（无法理解eating habits和increase profits有什么直接联系，如果是经过多步推理得到的，那么又属于逻辑跳跃，而且貌似跳的很大。）, thus it may not result in their healthy improvement. Therefore, the summarization could be a inaccuracy one as a lack of some possibility analysis. In sum, although the author's proposal is fascinating, a scale number of indelible logic mistakes make this statement questionable

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

亲耐滴66。。。。膜拜乃到一定境界ing 【星星眼】

水水A za!!!!!!!!!