0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 WDI小组by xydeng

xydengUID: 2472724

101. 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."

在最近的一次调查中，那些每周至少吃五次大豆的调查对象的胆固醇值比不吃大豆制品的人低很多。通过在我们的Wheat-O麦片中添加大豆蛋白，我们可以通过吸引更多的关注自身健康的消费者来增加销量。这种新的Wheat-O应该能够增加公司的利润，并且同时促进我们消费者的健康。

提纲：
1、
攻击study。首先，作者没有给出这两组subjects的年龄、性别、身体状况等特征，如果第一组人的年龄比较小，身体状况较好，本身胆固醇含量就偏低，而相对地，另一组人的年龄较大而且胆固醇含量本身偏大，那么，这组对比study就没法说明每周至少吃五次大豆的人的胆固醇值比不吃大豆制品的人低很多。其次，攻击调查对象或样本(sample)的选择是否足够大来支持一般性结论。其参与study的人数是多少，回应的人数是多少。有没有具有代表性。是否所有一个星期吃五次大豆的人就一定会有较低的胆固醇？
2、
即使我们假定吃大豆能降低胆固醇，这个argument仍然有问题。首先是添加大豆蛋白的Wheat-O麦片是否和大豆或者大豆制品一样能降低胆固醇。其次是关注健康的人们是否就仅仅关注胆固醇的高低，并且会买降低胆固醇的食品。
3、
是否赢利和成本也有关系，如果生产这种添加大豆蛋白的麦片成本非常高，如投入新的生产设备、原材料昂贵、增加工人等等，高于市场上所有麦片的价格，那么，如果按照市场上的麦片价格销售，那么其利润不一定会提高，如果提高出售价格，那么有可能价格昂贵而销路不好，这样总收入会减少，利润也不会高。
4、
要证明这种新的麦片确实能够增加公司的利润，并且同时促进消费者的健康，应该要进行科学的市场调查，调查清楚消费者的消费心理，有多少消费者会消费这种新的麦片，能否占据较高的市场份额。生产这种麦片的成本是多少，增加利润的空间是多大。

Before making a decision to produce such a new version of Wheat-O cereal, the evidence given by the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals should be examined from several other aspects. The speaker seems to have assumed that the study is reliable and indicates eating soybeans at least five times per week can indeed reduce cholesterol levels without ruling out other factors which may have affected the results of the study. Additionally, he or she simply assumes that the new version of Wheat-O cereal can also reduce cholesterol and the customers who care about their health will definitely buy this product, which ensures that profits of the company would be increased.

First of all, it is not guaranteed that the study mentioned in the memo is reliable and accurate. For a study to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the two groups. In the above study, however, nothing is provided about the ages, backgrounds, sexes, and general physical health of the subjects involved. We do not know whether the two subjects are of the same age, background, sex and general physical health. It is highly possible that the subjects who eat soybeans at least five times per week are those that are young and in good health condition with lower cholesterol levels originally, and comparatively, the subjects that eat no soy products are such persons who are old and in bad health condition with higher cholesterol levels. Then, significantly lower cholesterol levels have nothing to do with eating soybeans. Furthermore, the speaker doesn’t tell us about how the study was conducted, how many people attended the survey and what the concrete number of responders was. So the survey is open to doubt. All in all, without enough evidence, the speaker cannot draw the conclusion that eating soybeans help keep low cholesterol level.

Next, even if eating soybeans is helpful to keep lower cholesterol level, the speaker cannot simply draw the conclusion that the new version Wheat-O cereal has the same function of soybeans and will be preferred by consumers who are concerned about their health so as to increase profits. The speaker gives no information about the new version of Wheat-O cereal. It is not ensured that such new kind of cereal similarly has the function of keeping lower cholesterol level. And it is not guaranteed whether customers who are concerned about health care about cholesterol level and will buy the new version of Wheat-O cereal as breakfast. Another element to consider is this: original customers who buy Wheat-O cereal may not like such new version of cereal because of taste or other factors. If this were the case, the company would lose the original customers, which would decrease the company’s profits in the opposite.

In addition, even if customers would buy the new version of Wheat-O cereal, the memo’s claim that the company’s overall profits would increase is unwarranted. The company’s profitability is a function of revenue and expenses relating to all products. In one hand, it is not told what the expense of producing and the revenue of selling such new kind of cereal are. It is not necessarily the case that the company can increase profits. In another hand, since the memo provides no evidence that the company will continue to be profitable in other respects, the claim that this new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits is questionable.

In sum, to draw the conclusion that this new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers, the speaker should provide more convincing and sound evidence to prove that this new version of Wheat-O cereal will be preferred and bought by customers and is profitable.

carolfoxUID: 2237839

Before making a decision to produce such a new version of Wheat-O cereal, the evidence given by the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals should be examined from several other aspects. The speaker seems to have assumed that the study is reliable and indicates eating soybeans at least five times per week can indeed reduce cholesterol levels without ruling out other factors which may have affected the results of the study. Additionally, he or she simply assumes that the new version of Wheat-O cereal can also reduce cholesterol and the customers who care about their health will definitely buy this product, which ensures that profits of the company would be increased. 开头很好很明确

First of all, it is not guaranteed that the study mentioned in the memo is reliable and accurate. For a study to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the two groups. In the above study, however, nothing is provided about the ages, backgrounds, sexes, and general physical health of the subjects involved. We do not know whether the two subjects are of the same age, background, sex and general physical health. It is highly这个猜测合理，但是用highly possible是不是语气有点重。 possible that the subjects who eat soybeans at least five times per week are those that are young and in good health condition with lower cholesterol levels originally, and comparatively, the subjects that eat no soy products are such persons who are old and in bad health condition with higher cholesterol levels. Then, significantly lower cholesterol levels have nothing to do with eating soybeans. Furthermore, the speaker doesn’t tell us about how the study was conducted, how many people attended the survey and what the concrete number of responders was.此处攻击理由个人觉得有些牵强 So the survey is open to doubt. All in all, without enough evidence, the speaker cannot draw the conclusion that eating soybeans help keep low cholesterol level. 对于无背景调查的攻击可以稍微从略一点，当然这是我个人看法，另外像we，us这样的第一人称最好不要出现在argu中。

Next, even if eating soybeans is helpful to keep lower cholesterol level, the speaker cannot simply draw the conclusion that the new version Wheat-O cereal has the same function of soybeans and will be preferred by consumers who are concerned about their health so as to increase profits. The speaker gives no information about the new version of Wheat-O cereal. It is not ensured that such new kind of cereal similarly has the function of keeping lower cholesterol level. And it is not guaranteed whether customers who are concerned about health care about cholesterol level and will buy the new version of Wheat-O cereal as breakfast. Another element to consider is this: original customers who buy Wheat-O cereal may not like such new version of cereal because of taste or other factors. If this were the case, the company would lose the original customers, which would decrease the company’s profits in the opposite.

In addition, even if customers would buy the new version of Wheat-O cereal, the memo’s claim(the claim of the memo) that the company’s overall profits (overall profits of the company) would increase is unwarranted. The company’s profitability is a function of revenue食品税作为理由是不是有点牵强，这个应该包含在支出中了，而且同种商品添加某一成分对于税应该影响不大，个人意见 and expenses relating to all products. In one hand, it is not told what the expense of producing and the revenue of selling such new kind of cereal are. It is not necessarily the case that the company can increase profits. In another hand, since the memo provides no evidence that the company will continue to be profitable in other respects, the claim that this new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits is questionable. 对于利润提高的理由攻击论证有些不足

In sum, to draw the conclusion that this new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers, the speaker should provide more convincing and sound evidence to prove that this new version of Wheat-O cereal will be preferred and bought by customers and is profitable.

文章写的很好，对于flaws也把握的很准确，只是在考试中，时间有限，要注意攻击要有侧重点，如无背景调查的攻击可以稍减。