0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 by danielgao

danielgaoUID: 2604134

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 perweek had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ateno soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, wecan increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who areconcerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O shouldincrease company profits and, at the same time, improve the health ofour customers.

Argument101

In this argument, the arguer claims thathis company which makes breakfast cereals can increase sales by fortifyingtheir Wheat-O cereal with soy plain, accordingly appeal to additional customerswho are concerned about their health. To justify hit claim, the author cites aresult of study that the subject who ate soybeans had significantly lowercholesterol levels than the other as evidence. Although this argument seemswell-presented at the first glance, a careful examination of it would revealhow groundless it is.


First of all, the information of study istoo vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted thissurvey, and how the study is conducted. Besides, we find no signs of procedurefor random sampling, thus the doubting whether the subject can berepresentative of all the people. It is entirely possible that the subjects whoate soybean were selected from a specific city or geography region, thus havesignificantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soyproducts.
Thus this study result hasnothing to do with the soybeans.

In addition, the author commits a fallacyof soy protein is analogous to soybean in all respects. Even the above study isvalidity, and soybean can help to decrease cholesterol level of people, we cannot assure that soy protein will act the same on cholesterol level as soybean.Therefore, the assumption is unwarranted until the author can provides moreevidence to prove it.

Last but not least, even the author'sproposal could be carried out effectively, we still coud not hastily assumethat the company can increase their sell by fortifying their Wheat-O cerealwith soy protein. The author does not mention how may people are interested inthis kind of cereal and provides no information about his project cost. If justfew people are willing to buy this product, or the cost of carrying out thisproposal exceeds the revenue, this project will be profitless.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasiveas it stands. The evidences cited in the analysis do not lend strong support towhat the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author must providemore evidence to prove the soy protein's effect on reducing cholesterol level.To better evaluate the argument, the author should also afford more informationabout the cost of carrying out his proposal.