[a习作temp] argument170[0610G-我们的九月]第四次作业 [复制链接]

simplearen
UID: 2151889

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 589
注册时间: 2005-10-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-7-27 23:55:58 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

耗时2hr, 字数542
欢迎修改

Argument170
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.

In this argument, the author unfairly concludes consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters once the new devised process for killing bacteria is employed. And he also draws the unpersuasive conclusion that greater profits for Gulf Coast oysters will follow without sufficient evidence.

To begin with, a correlation between the harmful bacteria found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the trend consumers are willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters does not necessarily infer a causal relationship. The arguer neglects other factors which may lead to the trend at the same time. Additionally, the trend may incubate along some time, and the time realized by others was occasionally just as the bacteria were found.

Even assuming this trend was caused by the discovery of the bacteria, the lack of former data weakens the impact of that discovery on this trend. Saying that before the discovery, the price of northeastern Atlantic Coast is one point eight or one point nine times as the ones from Gulf Coast oysters, the influence caused by the discovery could be negligible. On the other hand, the trend is worth researching were the former price equal or much closer than the latter one. So the extent of the change is better provided for further reasoning.

The assumption once the bacteria are killed by the newly developed method consumers would switch back and pay the same price is unfairly as it stands. Consumers may like the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast for its taste or its color or its luster and so on. If the impact of the bacteria in the contribution of the price is trivial that killing bacteria can not make any meaningful effects. To say the least, if the bacteria really play as an important role in consumers’ selection of oysters, killing bacteria may not attract consumers back from the other competitor. During the last five years, consumers can develop the habit of eat the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast, and habit is undeniable an significant factor in choosing commodities.

Finally, the supposed price increase of Gulf Coast oysters do not means the greater profits as the arguer asserts. The arguer fails to consider the possibility that introducing the bacteria killing process may result in greatly increase in the cost of oysters. Hence, the profits might very well be offset or even worse the sales of oysters might fall down into more profitless result.

To sum up, this argument is based on some unproven assumptions and unconvincing reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide clear evidence that the trend was just caused by the discovery of bacteria and the extent of change should be presented to evaluate the importance of that factor on influence of the price. Even with this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument I would need to know if there are other factors that contribute to the competitor’s high price. In addition, the cost of the new devised bacteria killing methods is better offered to evaluate the practicability of the supposed process.

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册