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

bloodbobUID: 2627007

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."

提纲
The new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and help to improve the health of the customer. Subjects who ate more soybeans tend to have lower cholesterol levels. Add soy protein can help to l kept customers healthy by low the cholesterol levels which promise the profits.
1. Lower cholesterol level not is not representative of the health.
2. Soy protein can’t be use in place of the soybeans
3. In the study, those have significantly lower cholesterol levels may ascribe to other eating habits. fruits, sports, avoid eating fried food. (备用)
4. Profits includes the surplus yields from cost and income (research pay, ads)

In the memo, the president proposed to fortify the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein presuming that by doing so the company may make profits. Based on the result of the study that subjects who ate comparatively more soybeans tend to have lower cholesterol level, the proposal seems to be reasonable. Whereas, the close scrutiny of the logical relation will make the reasoning unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, whether soy protein may take the same effect as soybeans is still questionable. Soybeans contains far more nutrients than soy protein like the iron mineral substances that accelerate the producing of blood and speed the blood flow which may also play a part in the low cholesterol level. There is no evident provided to raise soy protein the main or even only substance that lower the cholesterol level.
Even we take it for granted that the soy protein may take the place of soybean in terms of the effect of lowering the cholesterol level, we cannot make believe that those who have low cholesterol level are definitely the one possessing the healthy body. Health consists too much that is can only be measured through the comprehensive test include the organ test of heart, liver, intestine as well as the function test like digestive, respiratory and immune system and even through the physical test of running, jumping as well as weight-lifting. In that sense, the low cholesterol level indicates too little to mean health.
Finally I am not sure whether the proposal of fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein is profitable. Profits can only be counted in the form of surplus yields from cost and income. The cost is cannot be ignore while anticipating the profits. The research for product upgrading cost so much that we have to take it into consideration. It may be the case that, the soy protein eliciting and combination technique is too complicated to be put into manufacturing. What’s more, the product hasn’t proved to be promising. Evidence is lacking in the market share of the company so that we may doubt whether the newly invented product will sells well in the near future. Again, the competition from other breakfast cereal company ought to be considered.
In short, the survey fails to substantiate the viability to exploit the new product rich in soy protein. The author had better at first sort out the strong proof of casual relation between soy protein and physical health before come to conclusion. And the further research of the potential market share is also essential to render the proposal sensible.

xydengUID: 2472724

0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 WDI小组by Bloodbob
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."

提纲
The new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and help to improve the health of the customer. Subjects who ate more soybeans tend to have lower cholesterol levels. Add soy protein can help to l kept customers healthy by low the cholesterol levels which promise the profits.
1. Lower cholesterol level not is not representative of the health.
2. Soy protein can’t be use in place of the soybeans
3. In the study, those have significantly lower cholesterol levels may ascribe to other eating habits. fruits, sports, avoid eating fried food. (备用)
4. Profits includes the surplus yields from cost and income (research pay, ads)

In the memo, the president proposed to fortify the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein presuming that by doing so the company may make profits. Based on the result of the study that subjects who ate comparatively more soybeans tend to have lower cholesterol level, the proposal seems to be reasonable. Whereas, the close scrutiny of the logical relation will make the reasoning unconvincing as it stands.

首段提出flaw很好，但是貌似你没有把flaws都指出来，只指出了survey有问题。

In the first place, whether soy protein may take the same effect as soybeans is still questionable. Soybeans contains far more nutrients than soy protein like the iron mineral substances that accelerate the producing of blood and speed the blood flow which may also play a part in the low cholesterol level. There is no evident provided to raise soy protein the main or even only substance that lower the cholesterol level.

该段攻击soy protein不等于soybeans。你把这作为第一个攻击点，也还行吧。但是纵观全文，偶发现貌似逻辑上有点问题，有点混乱~~~

Even we take it for granted that the soy protein may take the place of soybean in terms of the effect of lowering the cholesterol level, we cannot make believe(貌似不能做名词吧) that those who have low cholesterol level are definitely the one possessing the healthy body. Health consists too much that is can only be measured through the comprehensive test include the organ test of heart, liver, intestine as well as the function test like digestive, respiratory and immune system and even through the physical test of running, jumping as well as weight-lifting. In that sense, the low cholesterol level indicates too little to mean health.

该段攻击胆固醇低不等于拥有健康的身体。但是，我觉得你展开得过多，并没有回归到the new version of Wheat-O cereal这个话题，你应该还要明确地指出，因为胆固醇低并不等于健康的身体，所以关注健康的人们未必会都有胆固醇方面的问题，都会关注胆固醇问题，并会购买这种新麦片以降低胆固醇。

Finally I am not sure whether the proposal of fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein is profitable. Profits can only be counted in the form of surplus yields from cost and income. The cost is cannot be ignore（被动，ignored） while anticipating the profits. The research for product upgrading cost so much that we have to take it into consideration. It may be the case that, the soy protein eliciting and combination technique is too complicated to be put into manufacturing. What’s more, the product hasn’t proved to be promising. Evidence is lacking in the market share of the company so that we may doubt whether the newly invented product will sells well in the near future. Again, the competition from other breakfast cereal company ought to be considered.

In short, the survey fails to substantiate the viability to exploit the new product rich in soy protein. The author had better at first sort out the strong proof of casual relation between soy protein and physical health before come to conclusion. And the further research of the potential market share is also essential to render the proposal sensible.

你对英语句子和词汇的掌控是不容置疑的。但是我觉得，你这篇文章没有很好地把握住该memo的flaws。这篇memo的flaws应该有三点：
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、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值得怀疑。关注健康的人们是否就仅仅关注胆固醇的高低，并且会购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。而且，这个公司如果还有其他产品，那么公司的利润还和其他产品的销售情况有关，如果这种新的麦片卖得好，而其他的产品销售变差，那么总利润不一定会增加。
然而，在文中，你没有攻击最关键的一个方面，即a recent study.

供你参考，加油！

bloodbobUID: 2627007

In the memo, the president proposed to fortify the Wheat-O cereal with soy protein presuming that by doing so the company may make profits. Based on the result of the study that subjects who ate comparatively more soybeans tend to have lower cholesterol level, the proposal seems to be reasonable. Whereas, the close scrutiny of the logical relation will make the reasoning unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, the description of survey is too vague to be persuasive. Such data as the age, gender and, more essential, the health condition of the subjects are lacking in the survey to render the result valid. It may be the case that the group with lower cholesterol level consists of the ones in their prime with sound body. By contrast, the group with higher cholesterol level is made up of senior persons with deteriorating body condition. Thus, more factors ought to be taken in to account before come to the conclusion that it is the ingestion of soybean that makes a difference.

Additionally, whether soy protein may take the same effect as soybeans is still questionable. Soybeans contains far more nutrients than soy protein like the iron mineral substances that accelerate the producing of blood and speed the blood flow which may also play a part in the low cholesterol level. There is no evident provided to raise soy protein the main or even only substance that lower the cholesterol level.

Even we take it for granted that the soy protein may take the place of soybean in terms of the effect of lowering the cholesterol level, we cannot make believe that those who have low cholesterol level are definitely the one possessing the healthy body. Health consists too much that is can only be measured through the comprehensive test include the organ test of heart, liver, intestine as well as the function test like digestive, respiratory and immune system and even through the physical test of running, jumping as well as weight-lifting. In that sense, the low cholesterol level indicates too little to mean health. It is irrational to regard also people concerned about health to be high cholesterol sufferer and more ridiculous to include them as potential buyers.

Finally I am not sure whether the proposal of fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein is profitable. Profits can only be counted in the form of surplus yields from cost and income. The cost is cannot be ignored while anticipating the profits. The research for product upgrading cost so much that we have to take it into consideration. It may be the case that, the soy protein eliciting and combination technique is too complicated to be put into manufacturing. What’s more, the product hasn’t proved to be promising. Evidence is lacking in the market share of the company so that we may doubt whether the newly invented product will sells well in the near future. Again, the competition from other breakfast cereal company ought to be considered.

In short, the survey fails to substantiate the viability to exploit the new product rich in soy protein. The author had better at first sort out the strong proof of casual relation between soy protein and physical health before come to conclusion. And the further research of the potential market share is also essential to render the proposal sensible.