0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT101 by Brian Wang

brianwangboUID: 2643722

Argument 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.
1)
cholesterol level减低并不一定是一周吃5次soybeans而造成的，一周中可能由于其他原因，比如本周吃的食物，本身含胆固醇就少，素食为主，也可能是因为一些人吃了将胆固醇的药造成的，而且调查的人群也不一样，胖瘦人的胆固醇含量相差很大。调查的可信度，以及如何调查，如何检查也都不清楚
2)
给谷类食物中加入大豆蛋白并不一定可以提高销量，有人可能会不喜欢这种味道，此外，即便是销量提高了，也不一定能够得到更好的收益，因为在生产过程中需要多出几道程序，而且加入大豆蛋白会增加成本，如果不提高价钱，也许会缩减利润。
3)
由于大豆本来的功效就没有确定，因此，就得不出可以提高消费者健康的结论

In this argument, the author recommends that fortifying their Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, they can increase sales and so they can get more profits. To support this conclusion the author cites a survey that subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than those who don't. Moreover, the author points out that they can increase sales by adding soy protein and they can attract more consumers who are concerned about their health. Well-represented and seemingly logic thought at the first glance, close scrutiny of this evidence reveal that they lend little credible support for the author's assertion. This argument suffers from several critical flaws.

As a threshold matter, one problem with the argument is that the survey provides us so little information. Careful examination reveals that the author seems so confident with the truth of the survey. Subjects who ate soybeans don't mean that it is because of soy protein their cholesterol levels become lower. Maybe these subjects ate foods containing less cholesterol that week, and they may use some drugs to reduce cholesterol inside their body. And also soybeans do not equal soy protein. Soybeans contain some other ingredients as well and it’s possible that the soy protein plays an auxiliary role in lowering the cholesterol level. Without ruling out all other such factors it is unfair to make such a conclusion. (soybeans并不一定和cholesterol level有关，即使有关也不一定和soy protein 有关)

Another assumption short of legitimacy is that sales will increase after adding soy protein. No survey has been done by the author that makes the conclusion unwarranted. The customers maybe don't like the taste of their new product. Also adding soy protein will need more working procedures and soy protein may increase their cost of products. If the price of their products becomes higher too, surely they will lose some customers. Or not, they should evaluate the revenue and cost to make sure if they can make more profits. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion.（sales 不一定提高，提高了profit 也不一定提高）

To sum up, perhaps the arguer has some otherwise sound reasons for his argument, but evidences and the reasons mentioned above are not sufficient and well grounded. To bolster his argument, a survey among the consumers may be useful and the evaluation of income and expenses will give him a more clear choice. Therefore, any final conclusion should not be drawn unless more detailed and convincing evidences are available.

受累了～～

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

In this argument, the author recommends that through fortifying their Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, they can increase sales and so they can (去掉，下同) get more profits. To support this conclusion the author cites a survey that subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than those who don't. Moreover, the author points out that they can increase sales by adding soy protein and they can attract more consumers who are concerned about their health. Well-represented and seemingly logic thought at the first glance, close scrutiny of this evidence reveal that they lend little credible support for the author's assertion. This argument suffers from several critical flaws. （过于模版化，可以参考论坛中相关帖子中的方法精简开头。）

As a threshold matter, one problem with the argument is that the survey provides us so little information. （我个人看到这句话的感觉，我特别想打人，真的。第一句话要开门见山的把错误指出来，这句话给人一种大喘气的感觉。）Careful examination reveals that the author seems so confident with the truth of the survey. （这种对作者说话主观态度的评价可以无情的删掉了，直接说他的逻辑漏洞就可以了，这类泛泛而谈的话同样给人搓火的感觉）Subjects who ate soybeans don't mean that it is because of soy protein their cholesterol levels become lower. （有点糊涂，你既然说Soy的作用，你扯进来soy protein做什么呢？）Maybe these subjects ate foods containing less cholesterol that week, and they may use some drugs to reduce cholesterol inside their body. And also soybeans do not equal soy protein. Soybeans contain some other ingredients as well and it’s （it is）possible that the soy protein plays an auxiliary role in lowering the cholesterol level. (我感觉你这句话应当是想表达soy protein还会起其它的不可知的有害作用，但是你现在所表达的意思并不明确，为什么还要限定在cholesterol level里呢？) Without ruling out all other such factors it is unfair to make such a conclusion.

Another assumption short of legitimacy is that sales will increase after adding soy protein. No survey has been done by the author that makes the conclusion unwarranted. The customers maybe don't like the taste of their new product. Also adding soy protein will need more working procedures and soy protein may increase their cost of products. If the price of their products becomes higher too, surely they will lose some customers. Or not, they should evaluate the revenue and cost to make sure if they can make more profits. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion. （这一段写得算比较规范了）

To sum up, perhaps the arguer has some otherwise sound reasons for his argument, but evidences and the reasons mentioned above are not sufficient and well grounded. To bolster his argument, a survey among the consumers may be useful and the evaluation of income and expenses will give him a more clear choice. Therefore, any final conclusion should not be drawn unless more detailed and convincing evidences are available.

总结：
开头要简化，主体段落要规范，按照“指出错误+反例其他可能性+总结陈词改善意见”。尤其是指出错误这一部分，你可以直接切入说A does not mean B，或者sales will not surely increase after adding aoy protein(正如你第三段写得那样)，没必要学北美范文那样先从一个更高的大概念角度归纳错误的类型。类似的道理，你把这个题用中文写一下你就明白了，你跟别人指出这里面的错误，你会先从一个宽泛的大概念先对错误类型归纳一下然后再切入题目详细论述吗？现实中谁要这么做肯定会被人斥责“别说废话，捞干的讲！”对吧？同样的道理，既然咱们是针对这个题目反驳，你一上来就按照题目的陈述直接指出它们之间缺乏联系等等就可以了。

以上

brianwangboUID: 2643722

启发非常大呀～～～谢谢～～你思维这么清楚，肯定能考个好成绩～～加油～～ 2# iloveusa2009