[a习作temp] a习作temp argument170 【Jet小组】第十三次作业 [复制链接]

machelle
UID: 2348066

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 506
注册时间: 2007-6-9
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-3-1 21:32:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

WORDS: 476 TIME: 01:00:00 DATE: 2008-3-1 下午 09:06:50

The article dictates that the fact during the past five years oysters of Atlantic Coast (AC) is more popular than Gulf Coast (GC) among the consumers in California attributes to that harmful bacteria were found in a few raw GC oysters. Since scientists have devised a process for killing the bacteria , customers would be aware of it and be drawn to pay much more for GC oysters , which will guarantee GC' profit. Nevertheless, the article contains several flaws render the conclusion unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the fact consumers are favor of AC's oysters than GC's attribute to the harmful bacteria in a few GC oysters. There is variety of factors which will lead to the decline of the sale of GC oyster such as price, taste of oysters and the location of the restaurant. Without any information, the author cannot build up such causal relation between the two facts we’ve mentioned.

Even it is true that bacteria in GC results in the decline, the article cannot convince us that the new devised process for killing the bacteria will be well practiced and consumers will come back again. For one hand, the author doesn’t provide any information about the effect of the process. For another hand, even if the bacteria have been killed, the author cannot guarantee that there are no side effects which are concern by most of the consumers. It is entirely possible that the bad experience freaks them out and they are keeping away from GC from now on.

Besides, the article provides no evidence that consumers are willing to pay as much for GC as for AC oysters. Even if consumers patronize the restaurant again they will probably complain about the prices of oysters and refuse to the restaurant again. Common sense informs me that most of customer will be glad to patronize if the restaurant can decrease its price instead of increasing it.

Finally, the assertion that after the process killing the bacteria and attraction that made to the consumers will increase the profits of GC is open to doubt. As we all known, profit is determined by both the sale and the cost. Since GC has to hire the scientists to devise a new process for killing bacteria and make propagation to attract the consumers, which also means the increase of cost. Thus, without enough information the article’s assertion is dubious.

In sum, the article cannot convince me that GC will earn more profit after the execution of process fro killing the bacteria. To substantiate it, the author should rule out other possibilities contributing to the decline of sale of GC. The author should also provide other information to assure that consumers are willing to GC again after the execution of process and supply us with cost so that we can calculate the profit.