0910AW 同主题写作第五期 ARGUMENT101 bybrisk1111

brisk1111UID: 2571604

101.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company thatmakes 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."


1.调查没有代表性
2.豆蛋白不一定有效
3.不一定盈利


The president of a company claims that in the purpose of increasing company profits and improving the health of customers they should fortify their wheat-o cereal with soy protean which would appeal more consumers who concerned about their health to buy their products because a survey show that eating soybeans can significantly lower cholesterol levels than the ones who do not. The arguer maybe hastily to make such conclusion merely rely on a study.

First, there is no scientific evidence that eating soybeans can significantly low cholesterol levels. The arguer concludes it merely though a recent study. We also do not know whether this study can make some sense. The arguer does not tell us how this study conduct or whether there are enough people and the people is representative. And we also do not how long this study lasting? Maybe the results that lowing cholesterol level is a short time phenomenon, it maybe rebound back like some diet pill. Without eliminating all these possibilities mentions above, the auger should not say eating soybeans does lower cholesterol levels.


In addition, granted that eating soybeans does lower cholesterol levels, the arguer maybe unpersuasive to claim that the wheat-o cereal with soy protein can make the same thing. There is no evidence that it is the soy protein but not the other element contained in soybeans low cholesterol levels. Even if it is true that the protein in the soybeans low cholesterol levels, the arguer also can not say so, because we do know whether the protein can retain that effect after it divided with the soybean. Moreover it is maybe that the wheat would break the protein's function though the protein can retain that effect after it divided with the soybean. Since the arguer failed to consider and rule out these possibilities, the arguer's assertion can not be taken seriously.


Even if, wheat-O cereal with soy protein does can lower cholesterol levels, the company would not make an increase profits. As we all known, the profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. If the product is too high that people can not afford it easily though it would be benefit to their health. And it also maybe they just eat more soybeans to instead of eat Wheat-O or they do not like its taste. So before the company produce the Wheat-O they would better conduct a survey that whether the consumers prefer a product like that.


In sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands, to bolster it the arguer should show more direct evidence that the Wheat-O does can lower cholesterol levels. And any information about whether the consumers need a product like that is useful.

飘飘zlyUID: 2200552

The president of a company claims that in the purpose of increasing company profits and improving the health of customers they should fortify their wheat-o cereal with soy protean which would appeal more consumers who concerned about their health to buy their products because a survey show that eating soybeans can significantly lower cholesterol levels than the ones who do not. The arguer maybe hastily to make such conclusion merely rely on a study.

First, there is no scientific evidence that eating soybeans can significantly low cholesterol levels. The arguer concludes it merely though （through）a recent study. We also do not know whether this study can make some sense. The arguer does not tell us how this study conduct or whether there are enough people and(whether) the people is representative. And we also do not (少known)how long this study lasting?(.) Maybe the results that lowing cholesterol level is a short time phenomenon, it maybe rebound back like some diet pill. Without eliminating all these possibilities mentions(mentioned) above, the auger should not say(换成conculde) eating soybeans does lower cholesterol levels.（攻击调查错误可以进一步说结果无效。论证不够充分。）


In addition, granted that eating soybeans does lower cholesterol levels, the arguer maybe（应该是may be 我觉得语气有点弱 用can be ） unpersuasive to claim that the wheat-o cereal with soy protein can make the same thing（是说function）. There is no evidence （后面是一种可能，用It is possible that）that it is the soy protein but not the other element contained in soybeans low cholesterol levels. Even if it is true that the protein in the soybeans low cholesterol levels,（少谓语） the arguer also can not say so（有点口语化， 不够正式）, because we do know whether the protein can retain that effect after it divided with the soybean. Moreover it is maybe that the wheat would break the protein's function though the protein can retain that effect after it divided with the soybean. （这段逻辑关系有点绕，我明白作者的意思，但是表达的不够清楚。）Since the arguer failed to consider and rule out these possibilities, the arguer's assertion can not be taken seriously.
（注意表达）

Even if, wheat-O cereal with soy protein does can lower cholesterol levels, the company would not make an increase profits. As we all known, the profitability is a function（factor） of both revenue and expense. If the product is too high that people can not afford it easily though it would be benefit to their health. And it also maybe they just eat more soybeans to instead of eat Wheat-O or they do not like its taste. So before the company produce the Wheat-O they would better conduct a survey that whether the consumers prefer（不等于buy） a product like that.（这些论据都是很好，有说服力，就是觉得你说的不够充分。）


In sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands, to bolster it the arguer should show more direct evidence that the Wheat-O does can lower cholesterol levels. And any information about whether the consumers need a product like that is useful.

论证不够充分，表达不够准确。
楼主要注意语言错误，谓语，连词，助动词。

brisk1111UID: 2571604

改后
The president of a company claims that in the purpose of increasing company profits and improving the health of customers they should fortify their wheat-o cereal with soy protean which would appeal more consumers who concerned about their health to buy their products because a survey show that eating soybeans can significantly lower cholesterol levels than the ones who do not. The arguer maybe hastily to make such conclusion merely rely on a study.

First, there is no scientific evidence that eating soybeans can significantly decrease cholesterol levels. The arguer concludes it merely through a recent study. We also do not know whether this study can make some sense. The arguer does not tell us how this study conduct or whether there are enough people and the people is representative. And we also do not know how long this study lasting. Maybe the results that lowing cholesterol level is a short time phenomenon, it maybe rebound back like some obese people eat diet pill. Without eliminating all these possibilities mentioned above, the auger should not say eating soybeans does decrease cholesterol levels.
  
In addition, granted that eating soybeans does decrease cholesterol levels, the arguer unpersuasive to claim that the wheat-o cereal with soy protein can make the same function. There is no evidence that it is the soy protein but not the other elements contained in soybeans decrease cholesterol levels. Even if the protein in the soybeans results in low cholesterol levels, the arguer also fails to substantiate that soy protein can make similar function in wheat-o as soybean, after  divided with the soybean. Moreover, it is entirely possible that the wheat could break the protein's function. Since the arguer failed to consider and rule out these       possibilities, the arguer's assertion can not be taken seriously.
  
Even if, wheat-O cereal with soy protein  can decrease cholesterol levels, the company would not make an increase profits. As we all known, the profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. If the product is too high that people can not afford it easily though it would be benefit to their health. And it also maybe they just eat more soybeans to instead of eat Wheat-O or they do not like its taste. So before the company produce the Wheat-O they would better conduct a survey that whether the consumers prefer a product like that.

In sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands, to bolster it the arguer should show more direct evidence that the Wheat-O does can lower cholesterol levels. And any information about whether the consumers need a product like that is useful.