[a习作temp] argument170 [0710G突击先锋小组]第10次作业 [复制链接]

baiyun1205
UID：2331144

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 102
注册时间: 2007-4-23
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-2 14:32:48 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The author conclude here that people would be likely to pay as much for Gulf Coast (GC) oysters, so GC oyster producers would make great profits, which relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

First, the new process for killing the bacteria being devised may not be promoted, so how quickly can the consumers know about the new method is a question. As we all know, it would be nearly useless if the promotion of a new technology is not in time, especially when it comes to some products that have to be sold in particular seasons. Oysters is one of these foodstuff. So without better ways to stimulating customers and producers to pay attention to the bacteria-killing measurement and make use of it, there would be no differences about the situation.

Further more, even consumers accepted the fact that the new process dose kill the bacteria found in AC oysters before, are they really likely to be willing to pay as much for GC oysters? Without any investigation accounting for the attitudes of the buyers, the assumption is surely unwarranted. Even if data of the survey shows that people would like to choose GC oyster as an alternative option, it is still possible that they just mean it without taking any actions. In fact, key to the problem is that it is easier to damage a reputation than to rebuild it, so it would take a lot to make people believe the GC oyster is safe to eat.

Finally, even assuming that the consumers came back to buy GC oysters, it still might lead to smaller profits for the reason that there are lots of factors which influence profits of a producer such as marketing forces, laws and regulations in the particular industry, economic environment and competition conditions. So gaining appreciation from customers did not mean growing up in profits.

In sum, the argument relies on what might amount to poor assumptions that consumers would be aware of the new process of killing the bacteria and would accept it as well as an unconvincing reasoning that awareness of the new process would directly bring larger profits which obviously is unwarranted. Thus to strengthen the argument the author should provide better evidence of under what kind of circumstances that the new process would get popularized, and a clear evidence that people would really happy to choose GC oyster despite its gloomy history on safety. Even with these additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to know coming back of the buyers along with other factors that would contribute to the profit, and how do they work. In short, I cannot accept the argument unless these requisite for the conclusion are legibly provided.