同主题ARGUMENT101 =August Rush=小组第4次作业 by crepuscularlyw

crepuscularlywUID: 2645654

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.关于调查的可靠性。没有说明是随机抽样的，没有说明真正回答的人数占调查人数的比例以及调查的质量如何，选取的人是否具有代表性。
2.没有证据表明大豆蛋白就是可以降低胆固醇的那个物质，可能是其它的物质，如食物中的某种物质、与大豆中某种成分协同而具有的作用。再说没有证据表明是大豆蛋白而不是大豆中的其它成分造成的胆固醇降低。
3．某些关注健康的人不一定会买这种燕麦产品因为可能他们根本就不喜欢吃燕麦或者他们直接去吃大豆了而不花钱来买燕麦。也有可能那些原本买该公司燕麦产品的人因为不喜欢吃大豆而停止买燕麦了。这样实际的顾客人数增加与否根本就不知道。

In this memo, the president recommends that in order to boost company’s profits and improve the health of its customs they should add soy protein to Wheat-O cereal. To make his recommendation acceptable, the arguer cites a recent study of the subjects that who ate many soybeans had significantly lower cholesterol than other subjects’ along with the assumption that the new version of Wheat-O would function well. Plausible as the facts are, we find they are misleading after contemplation, the reasons are as follows.


First and foremost, the president cites an ungrounded survey to support his recommendation. However, we do not know any details about the survey. Maybe the arguer neglects these details but they are significant to an efficient survey. To eliminate the survey’s unreliability, we need to know both the sign of the randomly sampling and the specific way how the survey was conducted. We also need to know the fraction of people surveyed actually responded, the quality of the reply and whether or not the survey’s respondents are representative of the overall group. From another perspective, the comparison between the two groups cannot evince anything because these two groups may not share most similarities. Nevertheless, the arguer even did not provide any information about it. Unless the arguer could provide more evidences or statistics to convince me of the survey, the result of the survey cannot hold water.

Secondly, even assuming the result of the recent study is reliable, the president still untruly asserted that soybeans contribute to the lower cholesterol. There may be other reasons for the declination, such as some food this group of people eat or soybeans react with some certain unknown chemicals or substances that help to reduce the cholesterol. Even if the soybeans really do a favor, the arguer still cannot make a hasty conclusion that it is the soybean protein that actually works because of the fact that soybeans are consist of different substances, so may be other substance that really functions. Without some evidences that can make clear the certain substance that really functions to reduce the cholesterol, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Thirdly, add soybean protein to cereals may not bring more consumers. Some people who buy cereal do not like the soybean， some people who care about health do not like the cereal and they may eat soybeans rather than this kind of cereal, thus how should the arguer say the new version of Wheat-O could attract more people to buy their products while uncertainty about the amount of consumers?

In sum, the president’s recommendation is not persuasive. To bolster it, the arguer should reason more detailed and rationalized, provide more effective evidence relate to the validity of the survey as well as the actual substance that lower the cholesterol levels and take everything into consideration.

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

改好了，另外我把思路有整理了一下，看下我的帖子吧
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-985897-1-1.html