argument 15 考前3天。

hwslqcUID: 2861597

主要是想请问写这中argument的开头结尾能像我写的， 用the evidences cannot lend credible support to the conclusion之类的么？会不会因为这个扣分？
然后让步式攻击和并列式攻击结合会不会有比较好的效果？当然了～如果可以的话请版主大人写1、2句优美的语句（普遍可用的）留给在下到考场上依葫芦画瓢吧！！！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT15 - The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.

"Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and their profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."

提纲：

1．
就算这个survey本身是可信的（respondents之类的都没问题）survey的内容也不能证明大多数人不会去没OD的食品。

2．
Low-fat的食品很充足也不能证明OD的食品没人想买。

3．
就算OD现在确实遇到了困境，也不用卖出和不买股票。说不定以后会有手段方法改善这个困境。

The notion that Old Dairy (OD) should sell their shares and other investors should not purchase stock in OD seems to be sound and convincing. After all, the recent survey indicated people's dislike of fats and cholesterol while many of the food products marketed by OD industries are high in fat and cholesterol. However, close scrutiny of these evidences reveals that none of them can lend to credible support to the conclusion. The reasons are stated as below.

First of all, even we assume the recent survey itself is convincing, the substance of the survey cannot lead to the conclusion that most people will not buy the food with fat and cholesterol marked by OD. As we know nothing about the total number of the respondents, it is possible that only few people desire to reduce in such way. The arguer does not tell the present amount of food containing fats and cholesterol and how much（说的是程度么？）【这里不知道怎么写。】 the respondents want to reduce either, so it is also possible even the respondents reduce these foods a little, the total need in this market is still large. Unless the arguer can provide more convincing evidence to ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the conclusion will be undermined.

The fact that low-fat products abound in many food stores cannot guarantee the decrease of OD's sells and profits. It is highly possible that the low-fat food is abundant in these shops for a long time while（but） few people buy them, as the arguer cited no information about the sales and appearance of these products. Furthermore, we all know that people choose their food based on many factors. Chances are that the food made by OD is so tasty and cheap that even it containing fats and cholesterol, people will still buy OD's products. The arguer cannot draw the conclusion that the OD's sales and profits will decrease from this fact.

Even the mid conclusion that people will buy less OD's product since it containing fats and cholesterol is true, the final conclusion that OD stockholders should sell their shares and other investors should not buy OD's stock is still groundless. Every company would always face the change of the market and they all have their methods to tackle with that. Maybe OD will choose to change the style of its food, decrease the price of its food or provide account to the consumers to attract consumers again. It would weak the conclusion if the arguer cannot provide more evidence to eliminate all the possibilities like I mentioned.

After pointing out so many flaws in this argument, now we can say the evidences cited by the arguer cannot be relied on by the conclusion. Maybe the recommendation made by the arguer is reasonable. The arguer should provide more practical and professional evidences. For instance, he can cite the people's opinion about OD's product, the sales of OD's products or the OD's management plan and market plan.