argument 170 (机经) 修改了好多遍，年后第一篇。必回改。狂谢大家。

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 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, the 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, the argument fails to assure me the fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay higher price for NAC oysters than for GC oysters is because of the bacteria found in a few raw GC oysters. Perhaps the higher price of consumption for NAC oysters is attributed to the preference of local people in California, and consumers in California have preferred NAC oysters to GC oysters although AT oysters are expensive. Without the compare of price between NAC oysters and GC oysters five years before, it is difficult to draw the conclusion that profits for GC oyster will follow.

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, maybe at last because of fearing their health to be hurt, then give up consuming 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 enough. Profit is a function of cost and revenue. Probably the cost during the process for killing the bacteria is high. Besides, the cost includes transportation cost and others, such as keeping oysters fresh. As the matter, consumers cannot afford Gulf Coast oysters.

In sum, to support the conclusion, the author need to do some detailed marketing survey in the following: consumers’ preference for 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 in future.

chenxgUID: 183868

up

鬼谷子UID: 159645

试试先去改别人的帖子
我把你帖子的链接发在这个帖子了
希望你们能够结成对子，互相批改
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250039

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

第二段开头说可能顾客不愿花同样的钱，中间的论证是说的消毒因为可能不干净。感觉不愿花同样的钱这个问题可放到第一段。就是说第一段完全针对价格可能是由其他因素决定，比如口味什么的。第二段专批他这个杀菌工艺。第三段略显单薄，是不是因为限时？可以加上些句子，比如说作者没有给出任何证据THAT......,LACKING OF 什么的。。。。。
说的不一定对，参考吧

dabaoqiaoUID: 195888

文章写得很流畅,如果是限时写的我认为很不错了.
我就觉得开头好像不太好,完全是一个summary，没有主题句，可以看看ETS的范文，那里面开头只做summary的文章很少。
以上仅供参考

最初由 chenxg 发布
[B]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 o..

以下省略...... [/B]

lunaticUID: 150745

一、我认为第一个驳斥点比较薄弱。原文中说随着GC地区发现bacteria, oyster的价格短时间内就开始涨价，所以认为bacteria是涨价的主要原因从逻辑上是比较可信的。当然由于人们的喜好而价格高，人们也愿意买也是有可能的，但有点薄弱，但我个人认为这不能当主要驳斥点。
二、第三段只用了三句话未免显得太单薄了
三、第四段单薄一点是很正常的，只是最后一句“As the matter, consumers cannot afford Gulf Coast oysters.”好像不对吧，因为GC只是以同样价格出售，consumers怎么会cannot afford呢，最多是GC少赚点钱
晚上我也写一下这篇，期待能有人给我拍砖啊

chenxgUID: 183868

谁能给我一个开头和第三段的好的例子，多谢了！
开头可能我看了太多新东方给的那个100多篇的例子，养成思维定式了。

mythztUID: 162409

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, the conclusion is drew(这里能否改写为the author asserts that……，感觉主动态会好点) 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.
开头啰嗦了点，我觉得没必要把作者的论据罗列出来，点明他/她的观点再补一句总结性的话应该就行了吧J

First of all, the argument fails to assure me the fact that consumers in California have been willing to pay higher price for NAC oysters than for GC oysters is because of(改成due to可能顺一点) the bacteria found in a few raw GC oysters. Perhaps the higher price of consumption for NAC oysters is attributed to the preference of local people in California, and consumers in California have preferred NAC oysters to GC oysters although AT oysters are expensive.(怎么感觉这句话前后两个半句讲的是一回事，都是prefer，我觉得例子可以再具体点或多一两个) Without the compare of price between NAC oysters and GC oysters five years before, it is difficult to draw the conclusion that profits for GC oyster will follow(我觉得这里的conclusion应该是因果关系，而非全文的结论，不知理解有没有偏差？).

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, maybe(和前面it is possible重复？) at last because of fearing their health to be hurt(此句有点绕，换种表达会好些), then give up consuming 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 enough(“不够”？，改为groundless之类的). Profit is a function of cost and revenue. Probably the cost during the process for killing the bacteria is high. Besides, the cost includes transportation cost(expense) and others, such as keeping oysters fresh. As the matter, consumers cannot afford Gulf Coast oysters.
最好能有一句总结性的语句与本段开头呼应。

In sum, to support the conclusion, the author need to do some detailed marketing survey in the following: consumers’ preference for 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 in future.
结尾的形式很有新意呵！

个人觉得还有一个攻击点是科学家发明的方法一定能确保牡蛎的细菌被杀干净，如果这种方法成本太高，producers不愿采用呢?
我水平也不高，到现在还不敢发文章，就帮人改了几篇。如果你能在语言上再下点功夫，文章会更流畅的J一点拙见，见笑了。

dabaoqiaoUID: 195888

[你是3月10号鼎均考试吗？我也是啊，呵呵，握手握手。

QUOTE]最初由 chenxg 发布
[B]谁能给我一个开头和第三段的好的例子，多谢了！
开头可能我看了太多新东方给的那个100多篇的例子，养成思维定式了。 [/B][/QUOTE]

chenxgUID: 183868

是啊是啊，呵呵到时见吧，也没有多长时间能够复习了。现在时间很紧张啊。
晚上好好把这两篇文章好好改改，估计就差不多了。
谢谢大家！