同主题ARGUMENT101 =August Rush=小组 by KevinSpacey

KevinSpaceyUID: 2645771

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."

KevinSpaceyUID: 2645771

WORDS: 514
TIME: 00:50:27
DATE: 2009/8/9 23:30:19

Citing a study about the relationship between cholesterol level and soybeans, the president of cereal company conclude that by fortifying their cereal with soy protein, they can increase sales, increase company profits and improve the customers' health. It seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, it bases on several flaws.

First of all, It is mentioned in the argument that subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. According to this study, the president assumes that the soybean can help people keep the cholesterol at the normal level. However, the president fails to consider other possible alternatives to explain this result of the study. Such alternatives may include the fact that the subjects who eat soybeans frequently are chosen from the youngsters whereas the other group of subjects who do not eat soy products are from older people. Thus, it is the people’s age that decides the cholesterol level rather than the soybeans. It is also possible that subjects who eat no soy products prefer meat and buffer which contain more cholesterol than the vegetables. Without enough details, the study accomplishes nothing to bolstering the assumption that soybean has causal relationship with the cholesterol level.

The president assumes that the consumers who are concerned about their health will be appealed by the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein. Yet the argument contains on evidence to support that the soy protein has the same effect as soybean. Even it is true, the customers who are concerned about the health are more likely to eat natural and green food rather than the cereal which is processed by the factory. Even if they eat the cereal, it is equally possible that they would choose other companies' products. Until the president substantiates the assumption I remain unconvinced that Wheat-O will appeal to additional consumers.

There is no evidence to guarantee the increase of the company's profits. The president fails to consider possible facets that will decide the profit. These facets include the cost and the revenue, like the purchase price of the material, the sale price of the final product. To add the soy protein into the cereal, the company may need to bring the new assembly technical and hire experienced workers. This will cost the company a large amount of money. Perhaps with soy protein, the cost of the material of Wheat-O is much higher than that of preceding products, which makes the sale price increase. Hence, people may tend to by other cereal rather Wheat-O because of its high price. Lacking the comprehensive market research, it is equally possible that company profits will not increase.

Overall, to better assess the recommendation, I need to know the actual causes of the different cholesterol levels between these two groups of subjects and evidence to bolster the assumption that Wheat-O will appeal additional consumers. Before any final decision are made, the president should evaluate the cost and revenue of the new type of cereal to make sure the profits of company will increase.