Argument101 @@A DREAM @@小组第4次作业 bynicoleq(廿廿)

nicoleqUID: 2626973

Date：
Time: 112min
words：483

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the new version Wheat-O which adds soy protein should increase company profits and improve the health of our customers. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. Moreover, the arguer manifests by fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.

In the first place, the fact that subjects who are ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products is insufficient evidence to conclude that the new Wheat-O which adds soy protein should improve the health of our customers. Because of the level of cholesterol is not the only standard of health. As we all know the soybeans contain protein, fat, and kinds of other substance. It is possible that eat soybeans lead to higher level of fat though with lower cholesterol level for a person, it is not means healthy. As a consequence, the arguer can not claim that this new version of Wheat-O should improve the health of our customers.

In the second place, the arguer provides no evidence that the predominance of the Wheat–O which adds soy protein is the reason for increase company profits. Maybe, the sales of the new Wheat-O is low as the taste goes bad and the cost price becomes higher which reflect on the selling price turn higher for fortifying with soy protein, this reason absolutely possible make the customers do not like the new Wheat-O. What’s more we can not ignore the likelihood that the customers consider the original Wheat-O cereal need not add soy protein for the nutrition of it is enough. All the probability can not contribute for increase the sales of the new Wheat-O even make the sales lower which is bad for increase company profits. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point that the new Wheat-O should increase company profit.

In the third place, the problem with the argument is that the stated we can fortifying our Wheat-O with soy protein is insufficient to support the conclusion that the new Wheat-O should improve the health of our customers. On the cards, eating more soy protein is able to ruin the healthy of person. For the matter, this point that the new Wheat-O should improve the health of customers is unconvincing.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion about this new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and improve the health of our customers at the same time is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide more powerful evidence.