Argument170 牡蛎 菜鸟的第2篇，给初学者指点一下吧

potatoesUID: 178919

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument,the author concludes that greater profits will come to Gulf Coast oyster producers once comsumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters.To substantiate the conclusion,the author cites the fact that scientists have now devised a progress for killing the bacteria.Additionally,the author makes the assumption that the customers are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters.While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glance,careful scrutiny reveals several potential problems with it-problems that render the author's position untenable.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author fails to inform us exactly for what reason have the consumers been willing to buy northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters rather than the Gulf Coast's.The author mistakenly assumes that the consumers turn to other oysters as a result of harmful bacteria were found in the Gulf oysters.However,many other possible reasons can also contribute to this phenomenon. Perhaps northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters taste better than the Gulf's,or the former's price is much lower than the latter's.Unless the arguer could recognize and rule out other possibilties relevant to the shifting of the consumers' preference,the conclusion is quite unfounded.

Secondly,no information in this argument indicate the feasibility of the scientists' process for killing the bacteria.A scientific accomplishment may suffer from several restrictions relevant to practical situations.First,is the process able to kill the bacteria without killing the oyster itself,or even be harmful to the consumers' health?Second,does the new process cost too much for the Gulf Coast oyster producers to make a profit?Finally,is it possible that this process makes the taste of the Gulf Coast oysters much worse than the original?Without putting these problems into account,the new process cannot be put in use.

Last but not least,even if the customers are willing to pay as much for the Gulf Coast oysters as for the northern Atlantic Coast oysters,it lends no guarantee that the Gulf Coast oyster producers will take a great profit.The profit relies for a large part on the cost.The more the producers spend on killing the bacteria,the less profits will be made.Consequently,it is presumptous for the arguer to make the assertion that greater profits for gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

To sum up,the argument is neither objective nor convincing as it stands.To better bolster and strengthen it,the author should put other causes of the shift of consumers' interests into account.Additionally,the author needs to guarantee us that the scientists' process for killing the bacteria is at least feasible.Only with more specific evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250895
你们互改一下

suchaboyUID: 197372

In this argument,the author concludes that greater profits will come to Gulf Coast oyster producers once comsumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters.To substantiate the conclusion,the author cites the fact that scientists have now devised a progress for killing the bacteria.Additionally,the author makes the assumption that the customers are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters.While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glance,careful scrutiny reveals several potential problems with it-problems that render the author's position untenable.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author fails to inform us exactly for what reason have the consumers been willing to buy northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters rather than the Gulf Coast's.The author mistakenly assumes that the consumers turn to other oysters as a result of harmful bacteria were found in the Gulf oysters.However,many other possible reasons can also contribute to this phenomenon. Perhaps northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters taste better than the Gulf's,or the former's price is much lower than the latter's.Unless the arguer could recognize and rule out other possibilties relevant to the shifting of the consumers' preference,the conclusion is quite unfounded.

Secondly,no information in this argument indicate the feasibility of the scientists' process for killing the bacteria.A scientific accomplishment may suffer from several restrictions relevant to practical situations.First,is the process able to kill the bacteria without killing the oyster itself,or even be harmful to the consumers' health?Second,does the new process cost too much for the Gulf Coast oyster producers to make a profit?Finally,is it possible that this process makes the taste of the Gulf Coast oysters much worse than the original?Without putting these problems into account,the new process cannot be put in use.

Last but not least,even if the customers are willing to pay as much for the Gulf Coast oysters as for the northern Atlantic Coast oysters,it lends no guarantee that the Gulf Coast oyster producers will take a great profit.The profit relies for a large part on the cost.The more the producers spendspend on killing the bacteria,the less profits will be made Consequently,it is presumptous for the arguer to make the assertion that greater profits for gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

To sum up,the argument is neither objective nor convincing as it stands.To better bolster and strengthen it,the author should put other causes of the shift of consumers' interests into account.Additionally,the author needs to guarantee us that the scientists' process for killing the bacteria is at least feasible.Only with more specific evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.


帮我改一下https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?threadid=250895

suchaboyUID: 197372

In this argument,the author concludes that greater profits will come to Gulf Coast oyster producers once comsumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters.To substantiate the conclusion,the author cites the fact that scientists have now devised a progress for killing the bacteria.Additionally,the author makes the assumption that the customers are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters.While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glance,careful scrutiny reveals several potential problems with it-problems that render the author's position untenable.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author fails to inform us exactly for what reason have the consumers been willing to buy northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters rather than the Gulf Coast's.The author mistakenly assumes that the consumers turn to other oysters as a result of harmful bacteria were found in the Gulf oysters.However,many other possible reasons can also contribute to this phenomenon. Perhaps northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters taste better than the Gulf's,or the former's price is much lower than the latter's继续指出五年时间对口味的影响.Unless the arguer could recognize and rule out other possibilties relevant to the shifting of the consumers' preference,the conclusion is quite unfounded.

Secondly,no information in this argument indicate the feasibility of the scientists' process for killing the bacteria.A scientific accomplishment may suffer from several restrictions relevant to practical situations.First,is the process able to kill the bacteria without killing the oyster itself,or even be harmful to the consumers' health?Second,does the new process cost too much for the Gulf Coast oyster producers to make a profit?Finally,is it possible that this process makes the taste of the Gulf Coast oysters much worse than the original?三个问句重新排列下顺序，先说会不会影响收益（这是最主要的），再说口味会不会改变，最后说会不会有害，每一个都是前面的回答，或反过来层层递进Without putting these problems into account,the new process cannot be put in use.

Last but not least,even if the customers are willing to pay as much for the Gulf Coast oysters as for the northern Atlantic Coast oysters,it lends no guarantee that the Gulf Coast oyster producers will take a great profit.The profit relies for a large part on the cost.The more the producers spend可以说明哪些spend on killing the bacteria,the less profits will be made Consequently,it is presumptous for the arguer to make the assertion that greater profits for gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

To sum up,the argument is neither objective nor convincing as it stands.To better bolster and strengthen it,the author should put other causes of the shift of consumers' interests into account.Additionally,the author needs to guarantee us that the scientists' process for killing the bacteria is at least feasible.Only with more specific evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.
看了几篇范文，发现关于原因，越具体越好
看了几篇范文，发现关于原因，越具体越好
帮我改一下https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?threadid=250895