新
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.
72. The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department store.
“Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased, on average, for the three-month period between August 1 and October 31. Stores that sell products for the home reported that, on average, their profits increased during this same period. Clearly, consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. To take advantage of this trend, we should reduce the size of our clothing departments and enlarge our home furnishings and household products departments.”
专卖店的商务经理的备忘录：
本地服装店报告说从8月1号到10月31号的3个月里他们的平均利润下降。销售家庭用品的商店却报告同期的平均利润上升。很明显，顾客正选择为他们的家里购买用品而不是买衣物。为了利用这个趋势，我们应该缩减我们的服装部规模而扩大家庭装饰和家务用品部
1. A period of three month is too short to draw a general conclusion of the overall trend.
2. The past three months' trend does not guarantee the same in the future.
3. Whether the reports from the local clothing stores and stores that sell products for the home are reliable or not are still open to doubt, thus making the author's suggestion groundless.
1， 降低和上升，是否存在必然的关系。忽略他因。
2， 三个月的时间是否能说明一种趋势?
Based upon sales reports over a three-month period that indicate an increase in profits for stores that sell products for the home and a decrease in profits for clothing stores, the business manager of a department store concludes that consumers are choosing to purchase home furnishings rather than clothing. On the basis of this conclusion, the manager recommends a reduction in the size of the clothing department and an increase in the size of the home-furnishings department. This recommendation is problematic in two critical respects.
In the first place, the author’s conclusion that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing is based upon too small a sample. Data gathered from a three-month period is insufficient to establish the conclusion drawn from it. It is quite possible that the three-month period chosen is idiosyncratic and not representative of entire year’s sales. If so, reducing the size of the clothing departments and enlarging the home-furnishings departments may be a costly mistake.
In the second place, the data collected during the three month period may be biased. The fact that the data reflects sales in local stores is cause for concern. It is possible that the sales trend in a particular location is not representative of sales in other regions. For example, sales of clothing in Florida during the winter months are likely to be quite different from sales of clothing in Alaska during the same period.
In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. A more convincing argument must provide additional sales data, collected at different periods of the year and at different locations, that substantiates the trend in question.