请问我的句子有语法错误么,或者句式太单调

前一句,你的结构似乎是这样的：
The president falsely fabricates a causal link that
the ' fitness for life ' program
(which is mandatory for Plainsville's school children to participate in emphasizing the benefits of regular exercise at an early age)
will caused Nature's Way a considerable number of profit .
定语从句说which is +表语...是不好的表达,在语法上讲"不简洁、累赘",因为它完全可以用同位语或者分词状语等来替换.另外这个定语从句太长了有点影响流畅了.
还有一个,link一般不接that从句,比较常见的是 link between ...and...
以上是结构上的一些不太完美的地方.
貌似是GRE的Argu吧.看了一下这道题目.
从意义上来看,想说那个学校的此项目不一定能给Nature's Way带来收益.但是causal link一般是对已经发生的两件事情建立因果联系.所以虽然这词很好很学术,但只好忍痛割爱了.
此外原文原句不必全抄下来,这样给评分人的感觉也不是很好,简短的用几个词语概括就好,尽量多的是自己的论证.
按照你的原来句型结构略加修改为：
The president unfairly assumes that the fitness program in which Plainsville's school children mandatorily participate will cause a considerable number of profit in Nature's Way.
后一句：
Without any [firmly]1 evidence bolstering the recommendation,it is unfair [draws]2 a conclusion that this program [has]3 an positive influence on NW Sales Revenue.
(1)firmly改为firm；
(2)it is unfair [to draw](or [drawing]) a conclusion that...
(3)因为这是提议还没有执行所以conclusion是一个估计的结论,后面的时态应该是将来时的虚拟语气,可以说this program would have,或者this program have...后面的an换成a哈~粗心了不是
其他的都不错~加油
此外我倒是还留着此文提纲,说不定对你有些帮助作用,当然或许你也已经看到过(你所描述的论点在第4条)：
1.Strong sales of exercise apparel do not necessarily indicate that Plainesville residents would be interested in NW's products,or that these residents are interested in exercising.
2.The popularity of the local health club is little indication that the residents in Plainsville live much healthier lives now,and that NW will earn a profit from a store in Plainsville.
3.The memo contains no evidence to support the assumption that people who exercise regularly are also interested in buying health food and health-related products.
【4.The fact that a certain fitness program is mandatory for Plainsville's school-children accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation.】
5.The arguer does not provide any information regarding the cost of building such a new store thus we can not be convinced that the new store will be profitable.
6.The arguer fails to consider other possible factors besides residents’ interest in healthy lives that may contribute to the success of their existing stores.(confusing concurrence with causality)
7.The recommendation fails to substantiate that this interest will continue in the foreseeable future.
8.The arguer unfairly assumes that Plainesville residents will prefer NW over other merchants that sell similar products.