69. The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of a company that makes shampoo.
A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
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.
必看雅思阅读文章弹性工作制
雅思口语预测Driving
雅思口语预测Part1Films
雅思口语预测及解析
必看雅思阅读文章飞机与环境
雅思阅读必看文章之竹子
雅思口语话题预测
雅思口语最新调整1
必看雅思阅读文章欧洲运输业
雅思阅读必看文章药片包装
雅思口语预测Birds
雅思阅读必看的文章
雅思写作预测及练习题
雅思阅读必看文章岩洞艺术
必看雅思阅读文章挠痒与发笑
雅思口语预测Dancing
雅思阅读必看文章竹子
雅思口语专项预测Part1
雅思口语预测Languages
雅思全国口语预测
雅思A类小作文题目预测
雅思口语最新调整3
雅思写作全面预测
雅思口语预测Part1Hometown
雅思口语预测
雅思阅读必看文章郁金香
必看雅思阅读文章苏联劳动时间的变化
A类雅思写作预测
雅思阅读预测最终版
雅思口语预测Children
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |