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 president's decision is problematic in several respects.
      To begin with, the fact that the scientific study on HR2 involved only 500 subjects
is insufficient¹ grounds to dismiss the results of that study. If the subjects for the study
were randomly² 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 determined³ that prolonged use could contribute to hair
loss. While "prolonged use" was not defined in the memorandum⁴, 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 irrelevant⁵ 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 biased⁶ or was based on too
small a sample to yield reliable results.

上一篇：GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文九 下一篇：GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十一