Argument 170(2.22机经) 也是第一篇argument。有时间看看吧，谢谢大家

chenxgUID: 183868

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.


The argument cites a fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay twice for oysters for the past five years, and points out that the main reason is that scientists have found a process to kill the bacteria of a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. Therefore, conclusion is drew that if consumers know of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, producers will get profits from Gulf Coast oysters. I find this argument is unpersuasive on several grounds.

First of all, argument fails to assure me that fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters is because scientists have found the process of killing the bacteria of a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. Perhaps the increased number of consumption is attributed to preference of local people in California, and it is possible that local consumers do not care the bacteria that were found in a few raw Gulf Coast. They think such bacteria can be killed through several processes.

Additionally, even assuming that consumers in California care for the safety of Gulf Coast oysters, and consumers are made aware of the increased safety of products, it is too hasty to draw the conclusion that consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. It is possible that consumers worry about whether the process of killing the bacteria will work or not, at last because of worrying about their health excess, then give up to consume this product. Consequently, it is necessary to do some survey about consumer behavior.

Finally, the conclusion that greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow is not necessary. Profit is a function of cost and revenue. Probably the cost during the process for killing the bacteria is too high, as the matter, consumers cannot afford Gulf Coast oyster. Then it will not follow profits for producers.

In sum, to support the conclusion, argument need to do some detailed marketing survey in the following: whether consumer care about the bacteria in raw Gulf Coast oysters; the relationship between the consume trend and bacteria; whether it is possible to get profits through the progress for killing the bacteria.

Yan JinhuaUID: 142182

I think there is a disadvantage in the 2nd paragraph, because I believe the reasoning that cited in the last two sentences seems far-fetched or even off your TS

chenxgUID: 183868

The argument cites a fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic Coast (NAC) as for Gulf Coast (GC) oysters for the past five years, and points out that the main reason is that harmful bacteria were found in a few raw GC oysters. Therefore, conclusion is drew that if consumers know of the increased safety of GC oysters, producers will get profits from GC oysters. I find this argument is unpersuasive on several grounds.

First of all, argument fails to assure me that fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for NAC oysters as for GC oysters is because of the bacteria found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. Perhaps the increased number of consumption is attributed to preference of local people in California, and consumers in California have preferred Atlantic Coast (AT) oysters to GC oysters although AT oysters are expensive. It is possible that local consumers do not care the bacteria that were found in a few raw Gulf Coast. They think such bacteria can be killed through several processes.

Additionally, even assuming that consumers in California care for the safety of GC oysters, and consumers are made aware of the increased safety of products, it is too hasty to draw the conclusion that consumers will pay as much for GC as for NC oysters. It is possible that consumers worry about whether the process of killing the bacteria will work or not, at last because of worrying about their health excess, then give up to consume this product in GC. Consequently, it is necessary to do some survey about consumer behaviors.

Finally, the conclusion that greater profits for GC oyster producers will follow is not necessary. Profit is a function of cost and revenue. Probably the cost during the process for killing the bacteria is too high, as the matter, consumers cannot afford Gulf Coast oyster. Then it will not follow profits for producers.

In sum, to support the conclusion, argument need to do some detailed marketing survey in the following: whether consumers care about the bacteria in raw GC oysters; the relationship between the consume trend and bacteria; whether it is possible to get profits through the progress for killing the bacteria; and whether consumers in California will consume GC oyster.