=galloper=组 ARGUMENT101 by B37 mermaid

mermaid_hanUID: 2607690

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. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers."
WORDS: 606
TIME: more than 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-7-16 9:44:40

The arguer comes to the conclusion that the new Wheat-O will increase profits and improve the health of customers. To support it, the arguer cites a study that shows people who eat soybeans at least five times per week have significantly lower cholesterol levels that those who do not eat. Moreover, the arguer asserts that if the product is added soy protein, the sale will increase.
A careful examination of the argument will show how groundless it is.

First of all, the study is not convincing for us to the advantages of soybeans. The arguer does not provide how the survey is conducted, and if the subjects who often eat soybeans naturally have lower cholesterol than those who do not eat. Besides, the arguer should also give the physical conditions, ages, gender and so on to us. These information are important to affect the level of cholesterol. For example, the youth is healthier than the elderly, and then they may have a lower level of cholesterol. What is more important, not all people can absorb the nutrition of soybeans. It is possible that even if the elderly eat soybeans, but they do not gain the nutrition of soybeans and they still have a low level of cholesterol. In short, if the arguer does not provide the details of the survey, hardly can I be convinced the conclusion of soybeans.

Secondly, the arguer claims that adding soy protein to Wheat-O will increase sales and appeal to consumers who are concerned about their health. In the first place, the arguer does not prove the soy protein is equal to soybeans, which may not have the same function as soybeans. To improve it, there should be some scientific researches of soy protein. In the second place, not all the consumers like to eat wheat, and then it will not increase sales. Besides, there are other factors to determine the sales of wheat, such as taste, nutrition, and so on. If the wheat has a bad taste, consumers will not buy Wheat-O. Lastly, the company wants to appeal to consumers who are concerned about their health. It is definitely possible that there are few people concerning about their health, and if the company only pays attention to those people, then it will lose a lot of consumers. As a result, the company should make advertisement of its product, wake up consumers' recognition about their health, and then Wheat-O will have a good sale because more consumers are concerned about their health. In a word, the arguer should give more information about the soy protein and how many consumers are concerned about their health, or it is not convincing that the sales and profits will increase.

Thirdly, even if the new version of Wheat-O would be preferred by consumers, it is not sure that this product will improve their health. We do not know how much soy protein will take effect in lowering cholesterol, and we can not ensure every consumer will eat this product according to the standard every day. In addition, consumers may be tired of Wheat-O if eating it for a long time, and perhaps they will try to gain soy protein in other ways. In this situation, this product is beneficial to customers, but it can not improve their health much if they do not insist on eating it.

Above all, the argument is full of flaws and on the basis of assumptions. To improve it, the arguer should provide more information about the function of soybeans and soy protein. Moreover, the arguer should also know more about the purchase psychology of consumers and their attitude towards health.