【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
为了方便广大考生更好的复习，综合整理了备考资料：GMAT优秀作文精选，以供各位考生考试复习参考,希望对考生复习有所帮助。
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.
小编提醒：考生们可在日常生活中多读范文，多练笔，培养出好的语感和逻辑，这样才能在考试中写出优秀的作文。
为了方便广大考生更好的复习，综合整理了备考资料：GMAT优秀作文精选，以供各位考生考试复习参考,希望对考生复习有所帮助。
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.
小编提醒：考生们可在日常生活中多读范文，多练笔，培养出好的语感和逻辑，这样才能在考试中写出优秀的作文。
