[a习作temp] Argument170【07-10G 梦开始的地方】第7次作文 by kongrui [复制链接]

kongrui
UID：2272793

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 44
注册时间: 2006-11-12
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-9 16:12:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

170.For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

提纲：1 时间的先后并不代表因果顺序。
   2 这套工艺的成本考虑，不一定有利润
   3 杀菌后口味也许会变化
In this argument, the speaker cites the evidence that consumers in California are willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Coast oysters after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. thus, the speaker reaches the conclusion that by bringing in the new process of killing bacteria the Gulf Coast oyster producers will get a great profit. However, this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the speaker assumes that the reason consumers prefer oysters of AC rather than GC because of the harmful bacteria found in GC oysters. However, the sperker provides no evidence that this is the case. It is totally possible that there is no relationship between the bacteria and the sale. Instead, other factor might lead to the situation as the oyters of AC is more fresh and delicious that properly meet the consumers' taste, thus the bacteria killing process will do nothing to help. Given this possible reason, people will not turn to GC as the speaker recommands.

In the second place, the speaker unfairly overstates the effect of the new devised process. Given no details about this, one can not conclude the process will work as we expect. That is to say, the speaker fails to convince me that installing the process mentioned above will necessarily lead to increased safety of GC oysters. Even if it is true that the harmful bacteria can be killed entirely by the invention, the cost might be expensive. Thus, selling at a considerable price, the GC oyster producers might be more profitless than before. Without considering and ruling out alternative possiblities, the speaker's conclusion that GC oyster producers will benefit is indefensible.

The last but not the least, the speaker overlooks the possible changes of the oyster after killing the bacrteria. If this process is something like sterilizing in a high temperiture, it is entirely possible that the taste will become worse or the useful bacteria the body needs is killed as well. For that matter, customers in California might strongly not be tempting to buy GC oysters, or even pay as much as for AC oysters.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker must show that the process of killing  bacteria should be efficent and safety. Moreover, the cost must be low enough that the profit of the GC oysters producers is guaranteed. To better assess the argument, I would also need information about the cause of decline of the GC oysters in the past five years.