GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十

　　70. The president of the company that produces Glabrous Shampoo argues against

　　removing the ingredient HR2 from the shampoo even though a scientific study claims

　　that prolonged use of HR2 can contribute to hair loss. Three reasons are cited as the

　　basis for this decision. First, it is argued that since the scientific study involved only 500

　　subjects, it can be disregarded. Second, none of Glabrous customers have complained

　　of problems during the past year. And, finally, Glabrous competitors use more HR2 per

　　bottle than Glabrous. The presidents decision is problematic in several respects.

　　To begin with, the fact that the scientific study on HR2 involved only 500 subjects

　　is insufficient grounds to dismiss the results of that study. If the subjects for the study

　　were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of the population of

　　shampoo users, the results will be reliable regardless of the number of participants.

　　Next, the scientific study determined that prolonged use could contribute to hair

　　loss. While prolonged use was not defined in the memorandum, the fact that none of

　　Glabrous customers have complained of problems during the past year is not a reliable

　　reason to believe that problems will not arise in the future.

　　Finally, the fact that Glabrous competitors use more HR2 in their products than

　　Glabrous uses is irrelevant to the question of whether Glabrous should remove HR2

　　from its product. Moreover, rather than providing a reason for not removing the

　　compound, this fact serves better as a reason for doing so. By removing HR2 from its

　　product Glabrous could gain an edge over its competitors.

　　In conclusion, the reasoning in this argument is not convincing. To strengthen the

　　argument the author would have to show that the study was biased or was based on too

　　small a sample to yield reliable results.