0910[Try Best】第一小组 argument101 by cooljcq

cooljcqUID: 2498528

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."

The arguer's contention is well represented, but not well grounded. Many reasons the arguer offered are not well convinced to get his conclusion that their company will increase profits, while being good at consumers' health.
At the beginning, their result of investigation shows no plentiful evidence that make people trust them. Who knows the subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week also ate other types of food which may be more useful for reducing cholesterol levels. It is unreasonable to get the conclusion without considering other possible foods which also contain necessary element the subjects took in. The fishes, wine, oats also help people to decrease cholesterol levels.
As regards the second cause that the arguer acclaimed, no enough statistics reveal that fortifying wheat-O cereal with soy protein is a reasonable and scientific way. Furthermore, people who pay great attention on their health can not eat food such as soybeans or oats. May be they are not lack of that, or they prefer to take fishes, drink proper wine. Besides, even people who lack of relative element that reducing cholesterol requirement like to buy another brand rather than the Wheat-O company.
It is unconvinced that the arguer asserts the company can increase profits through selling their products-Wheat-O cereal. Firstly, there is no evidence that the company's new products can be sold well. It is possible that their products don't meet the requirement of most of people, as well as their price of the new products is high, beyond common people's capacity. In addition, whether another products in their same district competing with them is unknown. No one can deny believing that their competitor's products may have already produced and being sold the new Wheat-O cereal earlier than the arguer's company. Besides, there are no convinced data to make us believe that the new Wheat-O cereal can enhance the quality of their original product; and we don't know either that such new product will be beneficial to the health of customers or not.
All in all, the arguer provides few persuasive reasons to support his conclusion. If the company wants to propaganda their new product, besides doing innovation on their original product, they should also investigate the relative market and their competitors. Then the company can get their most profits.