argument170 大家互砸

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

------题目------
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.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer claims that people 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. At first glance, this argument is specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer commits a typical logical err 'after it, therefore, because of it'. He simply attributes the drop of the price of Gulf Coast oysters to the harmful bacteria found in a few oysters produced there. There may be lots of other reasons cause this drop. It is quite possible that the products of Gulf Coast oysters increase dramatically, the more products must cause the drop of the price. It is equally possible that the produce of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster are impaired by some reasons like weather or the conveyance of it also becomes more difficult for some seasons such as the rebuilding of the road. All of these can cause the increase of its price.

Secondly, even if the found of bacteria resulted in the drop. The evidence the arguer provides is not sufficient to prove that the price and profits will increase. First of all, the process for killing the bacteria may be not effective enough to kill all of the bacteria. At this sense, the new method has little use to help the sale of Gulf Coast oysters. Besides, grant that the method can kill bacteria completely, this process maybe destroy the tastes of the oysters, if this is true, the sale of oysters might decrease again because its bad tastes. At last, even if the tastes can be kept after this process, it is still too early to say the profits will enhance because the cost of this process has not been mentioned. The cost of this process may be very high, this necessarily cause the dramatically increase of the price, no more people are likely to pay much more money to the same things.

Finally, grant that the process can make the oysters the same as before in low cost, it is not easily to say we can recover its sales. Common sense tells us that the reputation is easy to destroy but hard to regain, people need time to be accustom to the oysters that have been disposed.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove the process can kill the bacteria completely without destroying the tastes in low cost and people are willing to buy them again.

不死鸟UID: 181168

第一次改文章，还得学学这个变色修改工具
速度慢了点，先占个位置，睡觉前改完你的大作：）

不死鸟UID: 181168

------题目------
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.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer claims that people 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. At first glance, this argument is specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer commits a typical logical err 'after it, therefore, because of it'. He simply attributes the drop of the price of Gulf Coast oysters to the harmful bacteria found in a few oysters produced there. There may be lots of other reasons cause this drop. It is quite possible that the products of Gulf Coast oysters increase dramatically, the more products must cause the drop of the price. It is equally possible that the produce of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster are impaired by some reasons like weather or the conveyance of it also becomes more difficult for some seasons such as the rebuilding of the road. All of these can cause the increase of its price.
Secondly, even if the found of bacteria resulted in the drop. The evidence the arguer provides is not sufficient to prove that the price and profits will increase. First of all, the process for killing the bacteria may be not effective enough to kill all of the bacteria. At this sense, the new method has little use to help the sale of Gulf Coast oysters. Besides, grant that the method can kill bacteria completely, this process maybe destroy the tastes of the oysters, if this is true, the sale of oysters might decrease again because its bad tastes. At last, even if the tastes can be kept after this process, it is still too early to say the profits will enhance because the cost of this process has not been mentioned. The cost of this process may be very high, this necessarily cause the dramatically increase of the price, no more people are likely to pay much more money to the same things.

Finally, grant that the process can make the oysters the same as before in low cost, it is not easily to say we can recover its sales. Common sense tells us that the reputation is easy to destroy but hard to regain, people need time to be accustom to the oysters that have been disposed.
To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove the process can kill the bacteria completely without destroying the tastes in low cost and people are willing to buy them again.

不死鸟UID: 181168

不好意思，[操作失败了]

不死鸟UID: 181168

------题目------
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.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer claims that people 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. At first glance, this argument is specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer commits a typical logical err 'after it, therefore, because of it'. He simply attributes the drop of the price of Gulf Coast oysters to the harmful bacteria found in a few oysters produced there. There may be lots of other reasons cause this drop. It is quite possible that the products of Gulf Coast oysters increase dramatically, the more products must cause the drop of the price.此处两个单句连接，没有关联词 It is equally possible that the produce of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster are impaired by some reasons like weather or the conveyance of it also becomes more difficult for some seasons such as the rebuilding of the road. All of these can cause the increase of its price. Produce…oyster…are…it我认为好像有点不妥。而且我认为此处的例子理由不足，应该再强调产量少了所以才会价钱高的，不过好像还是不妥，还必须说明是Atlantic Coast oyster确实有优势而且产量少才能说明论点。

Secondly, even if the found of bacteria resulted in the drop. The evidence the arguer provides is not sufficient to prove that the price and profits will increase. First of all, the process for killing the bacteria may be not我认为是may not be effective enough to kill all of the bacteria. At this sense, the new method has little use to help the sale of Gulf Coast oysters. Besides, grant that the method can kill bacteria completely, this process maybe destroy the tastes of the oysters, if this is true, the sale of oysters might decrease again because its bad tastes. At last, even if the tastes can be kept after this process, it is still too early to say the profits will enhance because the cost of this process has not been mentioned. The cost of this process may be very high, this necessarily cause the dramatically increase of the price, no more people are likely to pay much more money to the same things.

Finally, grant that the process can make the oysters the same as before in low cost, it is not easily to say we can recover its sales. Common sense tells us that the reputation is easy to destroy but hard to regain, people need time to be accustom to the oysters that have been disposed.觉得此段再展开一些比较好

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove the process can kill the bacteria completely without destroying the tastes in low cost and people are willing to buy them again.
文章很规整，流畅，让人羡慕。
Btw,是不是这样就叫做学术性的GRE作文。而不能用语形式过于随便