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.”
生产香波的公司的主席的备忘录：
一份广泛出版的研究声称HR2，我们的香波里的一种化合物，长期使用后可能导致脱发。但是，这项研究只包括500个样本。此外，过去的一年里我们并未从我们的顾客那里接到投诉，而且一些我们的竞争者在一瓶香波里使用的HR2比我们的还要多。因此，我们不必考虑用更贵的替代物替代我们的香波里的HR2。
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 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.
(266 words)
The president cities that a 500-subjects study claims that HR2, one harmful compound in their shampoo, can cause hair loss after long-time use, but he concludes that there is no need to change the use of HR2. Three reasons are offered to support his conclusion. The sample size is too small to represent the truth, and the author's company didn't receive any complaints about it last year, and the competitors are using more HR2 per bottle. The argument is unconvincing for two reasons.
First of all, the author argues that there was no complains about their shampoo last year. According to the citied study, however, the harm of HR2 can reveal after a prolonged use. Apparently, no complains in only a one-year period cannot prove that customers won't find out their hair-loss situation and blame the company in the future.
Secondly, the author thinks his company better than the competitors because it uses less HR2 in shampoo. Given that customers purchase shampoo in order to take care of their hair, it sounds ridicules that to choose one shampoo between two because it is less harmful. Due to the president's failure to put himself in the customers' shoes, it is presumptuous to make the conclusion that using less HR2 will not hurt the company's sale.
In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Lacking an enough long time period report of customer complains reflecting the harm of HR2 in shampoo, and ignoring the concern of customers with revealing some competitors' worse action of using more HR2, the conclusion of no need for alternative of HR2 is ill-founded. Ultimately, the argument might have been more convincing by adding a complain report under an enough long time research, and comparing with competitors about its advantages over competitors, instead of showing it is not that bad.