=七月流火=小组第3次小组作业 argu101 by 12lghscu

lghscuUID: 2552043

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: 538
TIME: 00:65:00
DATE: 2009-8-23 14:48:56

The argument presented above for arguing that the company would make money and the health of the customers would be improved by a new type of Wheat-O, based on the fact that more soybeans ate means fewer cholesterol contents showed by a study, and that sales could be increased by those customers concerned with their own health, seems logical. However, the argument suffers from several flaws as follows.

In the first place, the president of the company fails to recognize other possible alternative explanations for the relationship between soybeans and cholesterol. For example, it might be the case that the former objects might originally have lower levels of cholesterol than the latter before eating soybeans products. It might also be the case that those who had soybeans ate another kind of food which contributed to the decreasing of cholesterol levels while those having higher contents of cholesterol not. Therefore, eating or not eating soybeans products does not determine that soybeans would help to make the cholesterol levels lower. The president needs to provide enough information to rule out such alternative explanations as discussed above.

In the second place, the president is also failing to consider the fact that those people who are concerned with their health condition would possiblely be unwilling or unable to buy some health food, let alone the new version of Wheat-O. It is possible that this kind of people hold the opinion that going into sports in a park is the best way to keep their health, rather than health food. Consequently the sales of the new products would not be increased as expected. In addition, do they have money for this food? they might find that the high quality food is sold at a considerable price and they could not afford it even if they want to buy some health food. Given the information above, more convincing evidence should be provided to support the assumption that the sales could be increased.

Last but not least, even if the soybeans causes the decreasing of cholesterol levels and the company would have a prospective increase in sales, the arguer’s claim that developing a new kind of Wheat-O would make money for the company specializing breakfast cereals is not sufficiently supported in the argument. On the one hand, a large amount of money would be invested in getting a new version products. Do the incorporation have the additional budget for developing new products? If not, the shortage of money would impede the company from doing so. On the other hand, it is possible that the prospective increase in sales is relatively low. If it is true, the overall investment for this new version would be greater than the overall revenue. How can the company make money? Therefore, only if the president successfully expains these fatcors, can the company be possiblely profitable.

Based on the discussions above, the president of the company making breakfast cereals lends little credible support to the conclusion that the company would be profitable and customers’ health would be enhanced. Unless he or she provides more sufficient evidence to support the cause-end-effect relationship between soybeans and cholesterol, the indeed increase in sales and a prospective profit the argument would be not that convincing.