求大神狠狠地批改我的这篇argue，拜托了

ShawnHsu

随意提意见都可以的～随便狠狠地批改哦～拜托了！！！

Argument 15黄油的那个argumentTOPIC: ARGUMENT15 - The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.

"Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and their profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."

以下是我写的argue～

The arguer’s recommendation depends on the deduction that the replacement of butter and margarine would not cause any negative result. However, this might not be the case in that the methodology of the conclusion and deduction might be problematic in two aspects. Above all, the information of 2 percent of complaining customers does not necessary indicates that 98 are satisfied with the change. What is more, the information of no complaining about change cannot be hastily deemed to the point that no one could distinguish the difference between butter and margarine. Additionally, the arguer fails to give the warranted evidence that the idea of extending cost-saving change could be accepted throughout the rest of country just based on the information in a random restaurant in the southwestern United States, because only a reflection of one restaurant definitely cannot represent the reflection of the whole country.

In the first place, the mere sample of only one restaurant is too limited to reach the point that the plan could be extending throughout the nation. Considering the possibility that affinities, conventions, habits in catering are diverse in various states, even in neighboring districts, therefore there is a great possibility that the customers in other restaurants could tell the difference between butter and margarine and then complain about this change. And maybe in this situation, some of the people may feel uneasy about this change for having no sign. Before ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot justify his/her assumption.

When comes to the point of the percentage of complaining, the arguer unfairly assume that 2 percent of complaining customers could leads to the result that 98 of them are content with the replacement. Indeed, there is a strong likelihood that the changing for margarine exactly meets their taste, and they are contended with this. However, it is entirely possible that some people just choose to veil their complains, but show their unsatisfactory of not coming anymore. In this case, extending this idea to other restaurants is really not a wise choice for the restaurants for their prestige and sales. Thus, in absence of such evidence, this deduction is flawy, not compelling.

In sum, after ruminating the views I state above, we can learn that the arguer oversimplifies the sample and overlooks numerous other possibilities, which plays a vital role in the process of deduction. Therefore, the conclusion that this cost-saving change could be used for reference is unwarranted and scarce logical and comprehensive evidence.

WeakCat

Where are 2% and 98% from?