=七月流火=小组第3次小组作业 ARGU101 by maggiegu1019

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

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: 518
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-23 21:59:45

The arguer recommends that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional consumers. The argument rests on a recent study of the people whether or not ate soybeans. However, the argument is fraught with vague, unwarranted and oversimplified.

Firstly, the argument rest on a study which is unscientific and unwarranted. Therefore the results may be inaccurate and open to question. No specific evidence show when and what a long period this study takes. When the duration is too limited the result of the survey of course will be questionable. The total numbers of the samples fail to be presented in the argument, since we can not guarantee the statistical significant of the survey. Perhaps the people taken part in the survey are only twenty, how can the arguer draw a conclusion only through twenty samples? In addition, there exists no evidence to make us know the random selection of samples is considered in the survey.

Secondly, the argument inherited a fallacy of gratuitous casual relationship. There exists no direct evidence to support that the soybeans is correlated with the decreasing of cholesterol level , even no materials in the argument can make sure that the lower the cholesterol level is ,the healthy our bodies are. Even the lower level of cholesterol level do exert an unrelenting effect in the healthy of people, maybe the people take part in ate something else which can low the cholesterol while not by the soybeans. There also exists another possibility, the people with lower cholesterol have a healthy living customs, such as taking morning exercise, never smoking, eating more vegetables and less meat.

The insufficient evidence provided fails to lend a solid validate to the conclusion that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional consumer. The fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can not be regarded as a exclusive prerequisite to the increasing of sales. Perhaps the people are not interested in this kind of the fortifying food for it has a terrible taste and makes everyone feel to vomit.

Last but not least, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Only through a vague survey and several assumptions, how can the arguer draw the conclusion that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional consumers? The fortifying Wheat-O with soy protein may contribute to running the company to a dead end. Perhaps the consumers do not like the tastes, another possibility is that the fortifying of course will lead to the increase of the additional expenditure which is a significant factor to the profits of a company, if the two conditions happen at the same time and severe enough, the company will encounter the very risk of running out of business.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, more evidence should be supposed to demonstrate that the fortifying food will be prefered by the public and additional expenditure will not be too high, so the company will benefit more profits.

knx1029UID: 2609556

The arguer recommends that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional consumers. The argument rests on a recent study of(on?) the people whether or not ate soybeans(感觉不是特别对，因为whether这一句不能用于修饰people...是不是应该改成who ate soybeans or not). However, the argument is fraught with vague, unwarranted and oversimplified.

Firstly, the argument rests on a study which is unscientific and unwarranted. Therefore the results may be
inaccurate
and open to question. No specific evidence shows when and what a long period this study takes. (只能说Take a long period,不能说take when)When the duration is too limited the result of the survey of course will be questionable. The total numbers of the samples fail to be presented in the argument, since we can not guarantee the statistical significant of the survey. Perhaps the people taken part in the survey are only twenty, how can the arguer draw a conclusion only through twenty samples? In addition, there exists no evidence to make us know the random selection of samples is considered in the survey.

Secondly, the argument inherited a fallacy of gratuitous casual relationship. There exists no direct evidence to support that the soybeans is correlated with the decreasing of cholesterol level , even no materials in the argument can make sure that the lower the cholesterol level is ,the healthy our bodies are(没读懂这句话....). Even the lower level of cholesterol level（可以删掉这个level...） do exert an unrelenting effect in the healthy of people, maybe the people take part in ate something else which can low the cholesterol while not by the soybeans(while not by...这个用法可以吗?). There also exists another possibility, the people with lower cholesterol have a healthy living customs, such as taking morning exercise, never smoking, eating more vegetables and less meat.

The insufficient evidence provided fails to lend a solid validate to the conclusion that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional
consumers. The fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can not be regarded as a exclusive prerequisite to the increasing of sales. Perhaps the people are not interested in this kind of the fortifying food for it has a terrible taste and makes everyone feel to vomit.

Last but not least, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Only through a vague survey and several assumptions, how can the arguer draw the conclusion that fortifying the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein can increase sales since it can appeal additional consumers? The fortifying Wheat-O with soy protein may contribute to running the company to a dead end. Perhaps the consumers do not like the tastes, (用句号..)another possibility is that the fortifying of course will lead to the increase of the additional expenditure which is a significant factor to the profits of a company, if the two conditions happen at the same time and severe enough, the company will encounter the very risk of running out of business.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, more evidence should be supposed to (suppose?我觉得用supplied?)demonstrate that the fortifying food will be preferred by the public and additional expenditure will not be too high, so the company will benefit more profits.

找到的理由比较充分。
但是，我的建议哈，每一段就一个中心点，最后一句概括一下。像第四段那样概括前两段的段落最好还是拆分到前面两段的结尾总结去。不然看着跟后面的last but not least有点断层。

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

2# knx1029

谢谢，我会好好修改一下，其实你说的问题我也一直在困惑，究竟新东方老师特推的这个HASTY GENERALIZATION 应该怎么写才能不重复？？？也许人家老师本来的意思，就是用这段凑数，自从我写了这段，字数倒是很有保障的~~~~