A13. The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of the Fizzle Soda Company.
“There is apparently a market for new beverages, as can be seen from the fact that other companies have recently introduced new juice drinks and sports drinks. Given this market and customer surveys indicating that many drinkers of regular Fizzle soda add chocolate syrup to their soda, we can increase our company’s sales by creating a new chocolate-flavored soda, ‘Choco-Fizz.’ Choco-Fizz will help us attract new customers and keep our customers who might otherwise switch to our competitors’ chocolate beverages. And Choco-Fizz will be more successful than Fizzle Plus, our most recently introduced flavor, because it will be easier to distinguish from regular Fizzle soda.”
In the argument, the author concludes that the chocolate-flavored will increase the sales of Fizzle Soda Company (FSC). To buttress his conclusion, the author points out the fact that there is a new market for beverage because other companies recently introduces new juice drinks and sports drinks. In addition, he cites a survey, which indicate that many drinkers of regular Fizzle soda add syrup to their soda. Furthermore, the author assumes that Choco-Fizz will be more successful because it can be easily distinguished. At the first glance, the reasons provided by the author are plausible, but a closer examination will reveal how groundless it is. The argument has several flaws as follows.
First, the author commits a fallacy of false analogues. The author contends that because other companies recently introduce new juice and sports drinks into the market, there is apparently a market for chocolate-soda. However, it is not necessarily the case. For example, the popularity of sports drinks results from more people who like sport, while chocolate-drink will be considered as a stimuli in the sports. Without considering the different characteristics of various drinks, the conclusion cannot be easily concluded.
Second, the accuracy of the survey is suspicious. The author just cites the survey as an evidence for his argument, but he does not indicate who attend the survey and who are those respondents. For instance, if all those respondents are the customers in favor of chocolate drinks, then the survey is not able to represent the total population. Unless the author can provide information that the respondents are randomly selected, it will be a sheer folly to reach a conclusion.
Third, the author assumes the Chico-Fizz will be successful only because it is easier to distinguish. While, the positive correlation of the two events doe not means that they have casual relationship. The factor that it is easier to distinguish will certainly lead to the success of the product.
In summary, the argument is not convincing unless the author can make clear in the above-mentioned aspects 1) the chocolate-soda will be as popular as juice drink and sports drink. 2) The respondents of the survey are randomly selected and represent the population of customers. 3) The choc-Fizz will be successful only because it is easier to distinguish.
In the argument, the author concludes that the chocolate-flavored will increase the sales of Fizzle Soda Company (FSC). To buttress his conclusion, the author points out the fact that there is a new market for beverage because other companies recently introduces new juice drinks and sports drinks. In addition, he cites a survey, which indicate (indicates) that many drinkers of regular Fizzle soda add syrup to their soda. Furthermore, the author assumes that Choco-Fizz will be more successful because it can be easily distinguished. At the first glance, the reasons provided by the author are plausible, but a closer examination will reveal how groundless it is. The argument has several flaws as follows.
First, the author commits a fallacy of false analogues. The author contends that because other companies recently introduce new juice and sports drinks into the market, there is apparently a market for chocolate-soda. However, it is not necessarily the case. For example, the popularity of sports drinks results from more people who like sport, while chocolate-drink will be considered as a stimuli in the sports. Without considering the different characteristics of various drinks, the conclusion cannot be easily concluded.
Second, the accuracy of the survey is suspicious. The author just cites the survey as an evidence for his argument, but he does not indicate who attend the survey and who are those respondents (who those respondents are). For instance, if all those respondents are the customers in favor of chocolate drinks, then the survey is not able to represent the total population. Unless the author can provide information that the respondents are randomly selected, it will be a sheer folly to reach a conclusion.
Third, the author assumes the Chico-Fizz will be successful only because it is easier to distinguish. While, the positive correlation of the two events doe not means that they have casual relationship. The factor that it is easier to distinguish will certainly lead to the success of the product.
In summary, the argument is not convincing unless the author can make clear in the above-mentioned aspects 1) the chocolate-soda will be as popular as juice drink and sports drink. 2) The respondents of the survey are randomly selected and represent the population of customers. 3) The choc-Fizz will be successful only because it is easier to distinguish.
和刚才的issue和看过的楼主的以前的argu一样，自己模版也形成了，词语句子都没什么大问题，都很好，就是觉得还是那个字数，虽然这次有380了，但是还是头重脚轻，感觉楼主的开头总是喜欢写的很多，觉得还是少些几句多写一些中间段把！呵呵！希望我的建议有用，楼主有什么想反驳的也可以说阿，让我也提高提高！呵呵
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |