argument170 互拍(V-MARCH组作业补)

savagettUID: 2134686

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.

观点:
1. 消费者不买A买B不一定是因为这个有害虫的问题
2.采用的科学技术未必能解决这个害虫问题
3. 解决了也不代表消费者会同样价钱来买(这点怎么也说不清...)
4.不一定有利润,因为成本提高或者竞争

The writer asserts if the consumers in California realize the safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they will buy them instead of buying those from northeastern Atlantic, and this will bring huge profits to the Gulf Coast oysters. Making such contention, the arguer firmly consider once the safety of oysters is improved, the consumers will turn to Gulf Coast products necessarily. Nevertheless, many other possible scenarios are neglected, which render the conclusion unconvincing.     

Firstly, the arguer cites the harmful bacteria found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters which ruined the reputation of Gulf Coast oysters as the major reason for consumers turning to northeastern Atlantic Coast products. There might be a certain correlation between them, but it is not certainly a causal relationship. Even if no bacteria had been found in oysters from Gulf Coast, consumers would buy northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters for their high quality. Therefore, the arguer go extremely to attribute the decrease in sales to the bacteria problem.

Even assuming the bacteria scandal is the main problem lies in Gulf Coast products, when the problem is  solved, consumers will not definitely choose Gulf Coast oysters again. The arguer only mentions scientists have invented a useful method to kill these bacteria, but he fails to provide any reliable information about whether the approach is efficient or not. Lacking sufficient evidence, hardly can the arguer convince us the safety of Gulf Coast oysters will absolutely be improved. More details should be presented in order to fully explain the killing bacteria process.

Suppose the safety of Gulf Coast oysters is improved and more consumers buy them again. The writer assumes hastily that they are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as for northeastern Atlantic Coast. Under same price and same quality and quantity products, it is entirely possible consumers will choose the one which they have been trusted for five years. In short, without better evidence, the supposition is not substantiated.


Finally, the arguer makes the conclusion that the Gulf Coast oysters producers will gain greater profits from this new trend. To draw this conclusion, the arguer neglects many others factors related to profits. For instance, the cost, when the producers take scientific approaches to kill bacteria, new devices are needed, which will cost them more. Or, the price competition between Gulf Coast and northeastern Atlantic will ultimately diminish the price, so the profits will decrease rather than increase. The arguer fails to notice so many possibilities that the conclusion is unjustifiable.

From these analysis, hardly can the arguer well explain why Gulf Coast oyster producers will gain more profits. To better bolster the conclusion, the arguer should confirm the process being taken to kill bacteria is feasible, supply statistic to demonstrate that more consumers will chose Gulf Coast oysters again and for the same price as for northeastern Atlantic, so Gulf Coast oyster producers might have more profits.

@amy@UID: 209096

别急，先占座，一会儿改 ^_^

@amy@UID: 209096

The writer asserts if the consumers in California realize the safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they will buy them instead of buying those from northeastern Atlantic [缺oysters] [这里意思好像和题目有点偏差，题目说：人们愿意以买Altantic oysters同样的价格买Gulf Coast oysters，好像并没有“取而代之”的意思], and this will bring huge profits to the Gulf Coast oysters [缺producers]. Making such contention, the arguer firmly consider[considers] once the safety of oysters is improved, the consumers will turn to Gulf Coast products necessarily. Nevertheless, many other possible scenarios are neglected, which render the conclusion unconvincing.     

Firstly, the arguer cites the harmful bacteria found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters which ruined the reputation of Gulf Coast oysters as the major reason for consumers turning to northeastern Atlantic Coast products. There might be a certain correlation between them, but it is not certainly a causal relationship. Even if no bacteria had been found in oysters from Gulf Coast, consumers would buy northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters for their high quality. Therefore, the arguer go extremely to attribute [我觉得这里go to没有什么用，直接写成attributes extremely] the decrease in sales [加上of Gulf Coast oysters] to the bacteria problem.

Even assuming the bacteria scandal is the main problem lies in Gulf Coast products, when the problem is solved, consumers will not definitely choose Gulf Coast oysters again. The arguer only mentions scientists have invented a useful method to kill these bacteria, but he fails to provide any reliable information about whether the approach is efficient or not. Lacking sufficient evidence, hardly can the arguer convince us the safety of Gulf Coast oysters will absolutely be improved. More details should be presented in order to fully explain the killing bacteria process. [你这段是怀疑那个process是否能够kill bacteria，可我却觉得题目中是比较明确地说这个process能kill bacteria，而且这个也不是题目的重点，题目的重点应该是消费者会不会重新买Gulf Coast oysters，嗯，这点你再考虑考虑，或者有空讨论一下，呵呵]

Suppose the safety of Gulf Coast oysters is improved and more consumers buy them again. The writer assumes hastily that they are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as for northeastern Atlantic Coast. Under same price and same quality and quantity [数量有关系吗] products, it is entirely possible [that] consumers will choose the one which they have been trusted for five years. In short, without better evidence, the supposition is not substantiated. [我觉得你这点可以加上即使Gulf Coast oysters的质量上去了，可消费者更喜欢Atlantic Coast oysters的味道等等]


Finally, the arguer makes the conclusion that the Gulf Coast oysters producers will gain greater profits from this new trend. To draw this conclusion, the arguer neglects many others factors related to profits. For instance, the cost,[the cost放在这里不合适吧？我觉得不要就行了] when the producers take scientific approaches to kill bacteria, new devices are needed, which will cost them more. Or, the price competition between Gulf Coast and northeastern Atlantic [漏了oysters] will ultimately diminish the price, so the profits will decrease rather than increase.[这里说profits下降太绝对] The arguer fails to notice so many possibilities that the conclusion is unjustifiable.

From these analysis[analyses], hardly can the arguer well explain why Gulf Coast oyster producers will gain more profits. To better bolster the conclusion, the arguer should confirm the process being taken to kill bacteria is feasible, supply statistic to demonstrate that more consumers will chose Gulf Coast oysters again and for the same price as for northeastern Atlantic [oysters], so Gulf Coast oyster producers might have more profits.

呵呵，我把我认为有问题的地方都指出来了，说错了勿怪啊，嘻嘻
还有，你可以贴上来之前没有在word里进行拼写检查，有些比较明显的语法错误
继续加油~~:lol

savagettUID: 2134686

谢谢.
我事后也发现我对题目理解有点问题了.
那个拼写错误,我再word里检查了的..竟然还有...看来真的很严重