Argument NO.170【六人行】by CrazyJoO

crazyjooUID: 2805124

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 493          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-8-5 15:23:35


The conclusion of the argument is highly dubious. Merely based on some gratuitous assumptions such as: it is harmful bacteria that lower the price of Gulf Coast oysters, new process for killing the bacteria will necessarily draw back the consumers and GC oyster is to be great profitable. Each of these fallacious assumptions will be further analyzed as follows.

Initially, the arguer unfairly assumes that only bacteria found in a few raw GC oysters should be responsible to today's problem. For one thing, we do not know that whether such harmful bacteria were found by consumers of by the GC oyster producers. It is very likely that consumers cannot notice the bacteria since bacteria are microorganism. In the absence of consumers' complaint about the quality of GC oysters, we cannot conclude that it is harmful bacteria lower the price of GC oysters. For another thing, the arguer fails to take into account other possibilities which cause current situation to take place. Perhaps AC oysters are more delicious than GC oysters. Or perhaps the taste of AC oysters is completely different from that of GC oysters to which they have already get used . Motivated by such curiosity, it is understandable that consumers are wiling to pay more money for AC oysters than GC oysters.


Moreover, even if consumers are willing to pay twice for AC oysters as GC oyster due to the bacteria found in GC oyster, it is still presumptuous for the arguer to claim that the new process for killing the bacteria will make the consumers flock to pay for GC oyster as much money as for AC oysters. Information concerning at least two aspects is scant in the argument. First, whether this process for killing the bacteria is an effective one remains unknown. Second, even if this process will kill all the harmful bacteria in GC oysters clearly, whether consumers would be aware of the increased safety of GC oysters is open to doubt. Without an intensive advertisement campaign, consumers are not supposed to turn back to GC oysters, not to mention pay for it as much
as for AC oysters.


Finally, even if consumers would place same value on GC oysters and AC oysters, the assumption that GC oyster producers will stand to gain greater profits is unwarranted. Profit is a factor relating to revenue and cost. It is likely that the new process for killing the bacteria will arouse huge cost which will offset or even exceed the extra revenue. Likewise, we should not ignore the potential cost of advertisement campaign as well. Without ruling out this and other possibilities, the arguer's conclusion is ungrounded.



To sum up, this argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should undertake a comprehensive research to find out the why consumer are like to pay more money for AC oysters than GC oysters. Moreover, the argument will be more substantiated if more detailed information about the process for killing the bacteria is provided, which may convince us that this process will guarantee the quality as well as the profit of GC oysters.