Tough Break (再战200610G) argument提交贴

munickyUID: 2122843

In this argument, the author recommends that the government to educate people about the bicycle safety and require them not to wear helmets any more when bicycle. To bolster this recommendation, the author cited a ten-year nationwide study that indicates that more and more people begin to wear the helmet while the bicycle accidents also increase. Then he/she concludes because bicyclists feel safer and they take more risk. Nevertheless, close scrutiny reveals that the evidence the author cited lend little support to his conclusion and the recommendation.

In the first place, the author assumes a causal relationship between wearing helmet and bicycle accidents, yet provide insufficient evidence to support. It is entirely possible that there are myriads of other more convincing reasons causing these accidents, for example, maybe the condition of the road in this country is extremely poor, and perhaps there are lots of vehicles whose drivers lack enough concentration on driving security. Thus, a great number of possibilities indicates that there is no necessary relationship between wearing the helmet and bicycle accidents.

In the second place, even if it is the helmet causing people to risk more which can lead to more accidents as the study indicate, yet it is unreasonable for the author to assumes that the situation during the past ten years and within the nation would carry out the same result in the future and in each part of the country. It is entirely possible that, people have realize the bad effects, it is also likely that only one part of the country has extraordinarily high bicycle accidents rate while other part has very  low rate, then it would be also useless to carry out such a recommendation.

Finally, the author draws a hasty conclusion and recommendation. Because he/she can not provide sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate that when people wear the helmet, they will risk more, and also as we know, the helmet can protect people from badly hurt when the accidents happen. So it is dubious to conclude that helmet cause the accidents and recommend to stop
using the helmets.

To sum up, it is reasonable for the author to suggest the government to concentrate more on the security education, yet his/ her recommendation lacks necessary and convincing evidence to indicate wearing helmet does can cause more accidents. Thus, to better illustrate his conclusion, the author need to provide more detail of the study and more sophisticated research about the true reason of the accidents. Then, we just can evaluate his recommendation.

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

来改啊~

In this article, the author claims that Gulf Coast oyster(GCO) producers could expect more profits due to the invention of a process for killing the bacteria, which is assumed the reason why GCO is only half the price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster(NACO).However, this conclusion is based on a series of false assumption, each of which can weaken the whole process of deduction. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, the argument suffers from a fallacy of equivocation. According to the mere fact that a new process of killing bacteria has been invented, it is unstandable to induce that consumers will be aware of GCO's increasing safty, which is prereuisite of higher price of GCO. Whether this process is mature and ready to apply in mass production of oyster, or whether this process is effective enough to kill the bacteria that is the main reason of low quality are all things that the aythor should take into consideration to make valid argument. Even if conditions above are granted, there provides no evidence that consumers will be convinced of oyster's quality thus to pay more. In fact, usually people do not establish any cursory trust on any food had caused problem for a long time until the time is long enough to prove its reliability.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider other relevant factors that may influence consumers' behavior. It is completely possible that other features of NACO's, such as taste, freshness, size, even if colour and lifespan etc., are true reasons why people are willing to afford higher price for them, not the bacteria. Besides, there is also another possibility- as a matter of fact, NACO possesses nothing better than GCO but status it presents if it is produced especially for upper restaurants. Under such circumstances, any effrot aiming remove bacteria, which is totally out of customers consideration, will be definitely in vain, not to mention about imagined raising profit.

Finally, the auguer hints that sole improvement in raw oyster is sufficient in qualifing following greater income of oyster producers, but he fails to analyze the relation between these two things. We all know that there exist numerous factors can influence products' price, especially for raw material for food. For example, large scale of fluctuation of price in market or exchangable demand and supply may be included in such elements. What also could considerably affect profit received by producers is cost in the process of production. Hardly any producers can control their cost at the same level or lower after adopting new technology, which is usually expensive, compared with status beforehand. Admitted that all hypotheses above hold some truth, producers might spend a bid amount of money in advertisement to spread the information and convince consumers. Consequently it is wholly predictable that profit will lower rather than raise.

As it stands, the conclution lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not adequate enough to lend support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the extent to which GCO producers could apply new creation in their production and to which bacteria could be effectively diminished. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the existence of other possible factors that may also influnce buying habits of oysters and how they act in such a condition. Additionally, more detailed facts reated to cost control in oyster production are also needed to reach reliable and comprehensive conclusion to guide oyster producers' activity.

czjsimonUID: 2215612

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.

字数：629    时间：未限时    日期：2006-7-20

消费者如果知道有了可以杀死细菌的方法，就会愿意付与AC牡蛎一样的价格，从而GC牡蛎生产者的利润将会上升。
1.消费者知道有这种杀死细菌的方法，是不是就会提高对GC的评价？这种方法是不是可以杀死所有细菌；有这种方法并不见得一定会被应用；信心的恢复的困难。
2.并没有充分的证据表明消费者对两种牡蛎评价的不同就是因为细菌的问题。
3.即使说消费者愿意付与AC一样的价格，也不见得会有更高的profit。也许整体价格水平会下降，新的生产商的进入，杀菌的成本。

In this argument, the arguer conclude that once the consumers in California are aware of the new process for killing the bacteria, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. So the Gulf Coast oyster producers will make greater profits. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, does the process can make sure the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast? The consumers have reason to doubt whether the process is able to kill all the bacteria. The bacteria were just found in a few Gulf Coast oysters but still feared the consumers. If the process can not make sure all the bacteria will be killed, it still leaves some risk that the consumers are unlikely to bear. Even if the process has been well developed and can thoroughly eliminate the bacteria, the consumers may still doubt whether the producers are going to adopt the process. How can they find whether the oysters have been sterilized? Why should they believe the producers, who are aim at profit and would like save as many cost as they can? If there is any doubt left within the consumers, it is unlikely for them to believe the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast. Moreover, the reputation is easy to destroy than to regain. The Gulf Coast oysters may have been branded as unsafe production. It may take a long time for the consumers to restore the credence on the Gulf Coast oysters even if the production has been really safe.

Furthermore, the argument doesn't provide sufficient evidences that the fear of harmful bacteria was responsible for the increasing margin between the prices of oysters from the two places. Though the finding of the harmful bacteria is early than the trend of the differing of prices, it doesn't mean the fear of bacteria is the cause. The bacteria were found just in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. It may be natural to find some bacteria in the oysters. And the bacteria may be easy to kill by the high temperature during cooking. So the finding may have not caused any fear in the consumers. However, maybe at the same time, the consumers found the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters were much more delicious or more nutritive. If there were other possibilities which are more responsible for the trend or the finding of bacteria didn't cause any fear, it is meaningless to discuss if the new process for killing the bacteria will increase the willingness of the consumers to pay.

Even if all the premises hold and the consumers are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, we can not conclude the producers of Gulf Coast oysters will surely make greater profits. New producers may enter the industry and the increased production will lower the price level of the entire market. The arguer doesn't notice the cost of the process for killing the bacteria, either. If the cost is very high, the Gulf Coast oyster producers may even make fewer profits from selling the sterilized oysters.

In sum, the arguer has overseen a lot of complicated factors and drawn the conclusion arbitrarily. The arguer should first make sure the fear of harmful bacteria is the main cause of the margin between the oysters from the two places. Moreover, he should be very careful and make more examinations before he concludes that the consumers will agree the Gulf Coast oysters have been safe. At last, there are too many unforeseen factors in the market; so it is difficult to make an assertion that more profits can be make.

zhuluUID: 2134300

TOPIC: ARGUMENT32 - Until recently, people in Hiparia did most of their shopping by driving to shopping malls. They are beginning, however, to do more of their shopping by ordering merchandise from mail-order catalogs and the Internet. These purchases are delivered to them by mail or by a delivery service. For many purchases, Hiparians no longer need to drive to and from shopping malls; there will therefore be a resulting reduction in the consumption of vehicle fuel in Hiparia.
WORDS: 428          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-22

The argument is well presented, but not well reasoned. In this argument, the arguer attempt to convince us the conclusion that Hiparians no longer need to drive to and from shopping malls, therefore there will be a resulting reduction in the consumption of vehicle fuel in Hiparia. To support the conclusion, the arguer cited the fact that people in Hiparia begin to do more shopping by ording merchandise from mail-order catalogs and the internet. Moreover, the arguer mentioned that these purchases are delivered to them by mail or be a delivery service instead of driving to shooping malls. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the proportion of people who prefer to shop by mail-order and internet is not given here. The arguer only rendered a vague expression of the trendency of the people in Hoparia. It may be the fact that only a slight and neglect part of the whole people in Hiparia would choose shopping by mail-order and internet. On the contrary, majority in Hiparia would rather enjoy shopping by driving to malls, which would help them both reinforce outdoor exercising and find more merchandises discount.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumed that delivering purchases by mail or by a delivery service could lead to a resulting reduction in the counsumptionj of vehicle fuel in  Hiparia. As we know, the merchandiase ordered by mail or internet also need to be delivered to the consumers by delivering. Provided that the the senders of mail or internet  delivered those merchandises by vehicle instead of by foot, the resulting reduction in consumption of vehicle fuel may not happen at all. In addition, the purpose of shopping by mail and internet is not to reduce the consumption of vehicle fuel but offer convenience to the consumers who cannot do shopping by driving to malls. In another word, the vehicles of delivers do not stop and keep on cumsuming fuels. Perhaps, the consumption of these delivers' vehicles would cause a increase of the fuel in Hiparia.

In the third place, the aruger assumes that the Hiparians no longer need to drive to and from shopping malls without any convincing illustration. It may be the fact that the new style of shopping is not popular at all and can not be widely accepted by whole people in Hiparia. On the other hand, the trendency of shopping by mail and internet does not mean that the people in Hiparia commit that they must do shopping by mail or internet. Therefore, the reduction of shooping by driving to malls cannot be confirmed, hence the reduction of vehicles fuel also cannot be assured.

In summary, the argument lack sufficient credibility to support what the arguer claims in the argument. To support the conclusion, the aruger need to held a survey to investigate the proporation who would like to shop by mail-order and internet. Additionaly, the comparison between shopping by driving to malls and delivering purchases by mail-order and internet should be rendered in detail. Ohterwise, the arugment is logically unacceptable.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

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.
Strategies
1.忽略其他原因: 牡蛎的大小形状, 口感不同, 不同地方的人生活习惯和口味不一样。前提:人们不一定愿意出一样的价钱买GC牡蛎
2. 充分条件: 杀菌后人们不一定购买。卖品的声誉很重要，一旦受到破坏，就很难一时之间重建声誉。需要采取其他措施，如宣传杀菌后牡蛎的安全性。
3.考虑缺乏全面: profits问题:只有收入多于成本才能获得利润, 如果杀菌成本很高,不能保证有足够的收入超出成本, 那就无利润可言.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT170
WORDS: 458          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-21

Based on the devised process for killing the Gulf Coast oyster bacteria, the author in this argument predicts that there will be an increase of profits for the kind of goods. According to his evidence, the scientific process will kill the bacteria and people will go to buy Gulf Coast oysters. It seems possible for the tendency at first glance, but close review of the fact shows that the argument is unconvincing.
The threshold problem is that the author fails to take into account many other possible effects which influence consumers' choice of different oysters. Although Gulf Coast oysters are safe to eat after anti-bacteria process, it is completely possible that they have special preference for oysters' size, shape and taste of Northeast ones. What's more, probably people in different places have different favors for oysters, and thus it is not guaranteed that consumers anywhere will purchase Gulf Coast oysters. In this case, without ruling out these or other possible elements influencing consumers' selecting, the author cannot provide persuasive assurance that they are willing to buy Gulf Coast oysters.
The second problem is that the only measure of anti-bacteria process is insufficient to drive people to prefer Gulf Coast oysters. We all know that any goods have kind of sales reputation, which is of significance in the market. Once reputation of goods is negative, it is very difficult to reestablish it. Accordingly, oysters are in the same case as goods. Even if consumers know the fact there left no harmful bacteria in the oysters, , it takes a great deal of time for them to get rid of the original negative impression on them. Probably, some other measures to be taken in the seafood market will help. For example, Gulf Coast oyster producers try to make advertisement of safety and deliciousness of their products, or some food experts are invited to manifest the safety truth of the oysters. In his way, consumers might be attracted to purchase their goods.
In addition, the author neglects that profits come from revenue surpassing cost. He simply thinks that only if there is sales revenue, there will be abundant profits. As a matter of fact, if investment of anti-bacteria process costs so many funds that a small amount of sales cannot exceed them, producers will achieve few profits as a consequence. Therefore, since there is no specific comparison of cost and revenue, the author is hasty to claim that profits will follow as expected.
From what have been discussed above, this is a superficial argument with no reliable evidence. To support his prediction, the author has to indicate more detailed and objective study about consumers’ willingness to buy Gulf Coast oysters and offer accurate data of investment in making the oysters popular.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 Anddie 于 2006-7-20 12:29 发表
超了一点时间，不过还是尽力在半个小时内完成的。

32. Until recently, people in Hiparia did most of their shopping by driving to shopping malls. They are beginning, however, to do more of their sho ...

The arguer cites about the possibility of a reduction in the consumptions of vehicle fuel in Hiparia, as a result of the prevalence of Internet and ordering merchandise.用词很好 To justify this, he provides a fact that Hiparians now prefer order merchandise over the phone题中应该是指mail-ordering吧 and internet, which might lead to a decrease of the times people go shopping by vehicle. I consider this argument suffering from several flaws as follows.
The major insufficiency of the arguer's conclusion is the assumption that the times people go shopping will decrease, due to the increase of people's ordering merchandise on the phone and Internet. However, this is not always the case because we cannot ignore probability of people's going shopping just as much as they were. As a matter of fact, no one can by everything he wants only through such kinds of media that are not face-to-face, since there're some unpriced things like rings, cars, computers demanding the presence of customers to check them all over. On the other hand, a great删掉 many  people, especially young girls and teenagers, regards shopping as a kind of fun, while the original purpose of it 用得不当is considered to be the second place. In this case, the development of phone-ordering or Internet-ordering seems to have little influence on them.
Another flaw that the auger suffers is the neglect of the assumption of fuel by the delivery cars. It is common sense to us that the cost of delivery of might become a major expense to the merchants, most of which derives from the cost of fuel. Most time 有这个用法吗merchants will take every method to optimize the route of delivery in order to save the cost of delivery, from which we can conclude the cost of transportation might compensate decrease of the fuel consumed by customers.
Finally, even if the possibilities of the two cases above are eliminated, the author offers no firm evidence to consolidate his conclusion when another condition may emerge that Hiparians are more willing to go outside by cars or buses, along with the time they saved on the way of going shopping. To spend the extra time Hiparians might hope to go to have fun, like going to films, going to amusement parks etc. This will no doubly undoubtedly intensify the transportation of the town and cause an augment on of the fuel assumption.
All in all, the arguer’s conclusion is not valid considering the three possibilities above, neither does he supply any evidence to prove the assumption that people will be less willing to go shopping with the apply of phone-ordering and Internet. To better assess the argument we would need to know more about the change of the status of traffic of the town 这部分在结尾新出现的内容，不合适, as well as the merchants' reaction to this condition
总体论证层次清晰，找到了关键的论证点，就是有拼写错误和用词不当。

munickyUID: 2122843

munickyUID: 2122843

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that the amount of electricity cost by copper-extraction would be decline. To bolster his conclusion, the author cited the fact that the old process would requires lots of electric energy when the proportion of copper is low. And he/she also points out that the new technology can save 40% electricity to process the same amount of raw ore when the proportion is high. However, close scrutiny reveals that these facts lend little support to his/her conclusion.

In the first place, the author's conclusion rests on the assumption that new technology does can be more efficient and can save more electricity than the old process. Yet he/she just points out that the old one wastes a large amount of energy when process the ore with low copper proportion while the new process can do a good job when the proportion is high. He fails to indicate if how the new process can perform when the proportion is low and if the old one can save more energy. We are also not assured that how do these two processes perform if the proportion are neither too high nor too low. Without ruling out these facts, it is entirely possible that the old technology wastes less energy than the new process. For that matter, the author assumption is dubious at best.

In the second place, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the total amount of the electricity cost would be reduced. On the one hand, the author can not provide convincing evidence that the new process can save more energy except when the proportion of the copper is high. Even though it is true, on the other hand, it is also likely that the total amount would still rise. Because as we know, if the the new technology is so excellent, and the country may want to raise the production, then they would require more copper, in that case, they may use more this kind of new machines, then although one machine may cost less energy than the old one, yet the total amount may be not be reduced necessarily. Thus, the author need to provide more details about the situation about the copper producing in this country.

All in all, the author draws a unwarranted conclusion according to unsubstantiated assumption and unconvincing evidence. For this reason, in order to better illustrate his/ her conclusion, the author need to more concrete and elaborated comparison of the old and new process. To better evaluate his conclusion, we also require more detail about the copper production plan, then we can judge if the total amount of copper would be reduced.
  
哎，就找了俩错，得参考一下大家的了

mercury_tol24UID: 2172005

170. 请狠拍阿！！

In this article the author asserts that the price of Gulf Coast oysters will rise and even double to equate with that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. To support this statement the arguer cites the following facts: (1) for the past five years consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for Atlantic Coast's oysters as for Gulf Coast's since harmful bacteria were found in a few Gulf Coast oysters; (2) A scientific process has been devised now to kill the bacteria and then consumers will realize the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. Close examination of these facts, however, reveals that the conclusion of the author is not as persuasive as it stands.

In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters than Atlantic Coast's is the result of the discovery that a few raw oysters had harmful bacteria. Many possible reasons besides the discovery of bacteria can explain the difference between market prices of the two sorts of oysters. For example, the oysters from Atlantic Coast might be a new specie that people in California had never tasted before and people felt them having a better taste than Gulf's ones. Or perhaps five years ago the supply of Gulf's oysters increased in California while Atlantic Coast oysters had a decreasing supply in the market. A detailed survey has to be made before we conclude that Gulf Coast oysters are sold at a price half of that of Atlantic Coast oysters.

In the second place, whether the devised process can really kill the bacteria effectively is unknown, even though people paid less for Gulf Coast oysters just because they are afraid of the bacteria found in oysters. More scientific statistics should be offered to make the public sure that the bacteria are able to cleaned out completely and the quality of oysters from Gulf can reach the criterion of safety. If the process was proved to function unsuccessfully, the price of Gulf Coast oysters would have to keep low or even get lower.   

In the final place, lake of more information about the whole market condition in California, we can not conclude curtly that the price of Gulf Coast oysters is surely to be the same as that of Atlantic's after the devising technique is applied. It is likely that five years ago Gulf Coast oysters sold at a lower price than Atlantic's and obviously, after the bacteria incident occurred, it is harder to make consumers willingly pay the same for Gulf's oysters as for Atlantic's. In addition, without knowing the detailed sale data of Gulf Coast producers, it can not be certain that the producers will gain greater profits from their production.  

In conclusion, in order to make this argument more persuasive, more marketing data of Gulf Coast oyster producers and more information about the effect of the scientific process have to be obtained and analyzed. Besides, the arguer must offer more strong proof to demonstrate that it is the public fear of the bacteria that leads to the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters. Otherwise, this argument can not convince people successfully.

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

原帖由 czjsimon 于 2006-7-22 11:03 发表
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 afte ...

argument170

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.

字数：629    时间：未限时    日期：2006-7-20

消费者如果知道有了可以杀死细菌的方法，就会愿意付与AC牡蛎一样的价格，从而GC牡蛎生产者的利润将会上升。
1.消费者知道有这种杀死细菌的方法，是不是就会提高对GC的评价？这种方法是不是可以杀死所有细菌；有这种方法并不见得一定会被应用；信心的恢复的困难。
2.并没有充分的证据表明消费者对两种牡蛎评价的不同就是因为细菌的问题。
3.即使说消费者愿意付与AC一样的价格，也不见得会有更高的profit。也许整体价格水平会下降，新的生产商的进入，杀菌的成本。

In this argument, the arguer conclude that once the consumers in California are aware of the new process for killing the bacteria, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. So the Gulf Coast oyster producers will make greater profits. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, does the process can make sure the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast? The consumers have reason to doubt 用得好哈 whether the process is able to kill all the bacteria. The bacteria were just found in a few Gulf Coast oysters but 不错的连词 still feared the consumers. If the process can not make sure all the bacteria will be killed, it still leaves some risk that the consumers are unlikely to bear. Even if the process has been well developed and can thoroughly eliminate the bacteria, the consumers may still doubt whether the producers are going to adopt the process. How can they find whether the oysters have been sterilized? Why should they believe the producers, who are aiming 动词进行时 at profit and would like save as many cost as they can? If there is any doubt left within the consumers, it is unlikely for them to believe the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast. Moreover, the reputation is easy to destroy than to regain. The Gulf Coast oysters may have been branded as unsafe production. It may take a long time for the consumers to restore the credence on the Gulf Coast oysters even if the production has been really safe.

Furthermore, the argument doesn't provide sufficient evidences that the fear of harmful bacteria was responsible for the increasing margin between the prices of oysters from the two places. 很简练 Though the finding of the harmful bacteria is early than the trend of the differing of prices, it doesn't mean the fear of bacteria is the cause. The bacteria were found just in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. It may be natural to find some bacteria in the oysters. And the bacteria may be easy to kill by the high temperature during cooking. So the finding may have not caused any fear in the consumers. However, maybe at the same time, the consumers found the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters were much more delicious or more nutritive. If there were other possibilities which are more responsible for the trend or the finding of bacteria didn't cause any fear, 前面用了were，后面用or和the finding正确吗？我没查出来，如果确定就没问题了。此外or后面的分句的表达有点歧义吧，didn't cause any fear应该指细菌吧？  it is meaningless to discuss if the new process for killing the bacteria will increase the willingness of the consumers to pay.

Even if all the premises hold and the consumers are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, we can not conclude the producers of Gulf Coast oysters will surely make greater profits. New producers may enter the 改成this好些 industry and the increased production will lower the price level of the entire market. The arguer doesn't notice the cost of the process for killing the bacteria, either. If the cost is very high, the Gulf Coast oyster producers may even make fewer profits from selling the sterilized oysters.

In sum, the arguer has overseen a lot of complicated factors and drawn the conclusion arbitrarily. The arguer should first make sure the fear of harmful bacteria is the main cause of the margin between the oysters from the two places. Moreover, he should be very careful and make more examinations before he concludes that the consumers will agree the Gulf Coast oysters have been safe. At last, there are too many unforeseen factors in the market; so it is difficult to make an assertion that more profits can be make.
几乎没有任何错误，逻辑错误也都论证到了，而且没有空洞的套式，好文章啊~赞， 好好学习一下

AnddieUID: 2135826

Enna_garfield (ＥＮＮＡ) 的ARG 170

In this article, the author claims that Gulf Coast oyster(GCO) producers could expect more profits due to the invention of a process for killing the bacteria, which is assumed the reason why GCO is only half the price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster(NACO).However, this conclusion is based on a series of false assumption, each of which can weaken the whole process of deduction. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.[结尾两句有点罗索,应该去掉一句]

First of all, the argument suffers from a fallacy of equivocation. [段首句太过简略了,应该至少概括出本段的具体内容. equivocation这个词也太概括.] According to the mere fact that a new process of killing bacteria has been invented, it is unstandable to induce that consumers will be aware of GCO's increasing safty, which is prereuisite of higher price of GCO. Whether this process is mature and ready to apply in mass production of oyster, or whether this process is effective enough to kill the bacteria that is the main reason of low quality are all things that the aythor should take into consideration to make valid argument. [本句的结构有问题] Even if conditions above are granted, there[the arguer] provides no evidence that consumers will be convinced of oyster's quality thus to pay more. In fact, usually people do not establish[语法错. people’s not establishing] any cursory trust on any food had caused problem for a long time until the time is long enough to prove its reliability.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider other relevant factors that may influence consumers' behavior. It is completely possible that other features of NACO's, such as taste, freshness, size, even if colour and lifespan etc., are true reasons why people are willing to afford higher price for them, not the bacteria. Besides, there is also another possibility- as a matter of fact, NACO possesses nothing better than GCO but status it presents[什么意思?] if it is produced especially for upper restaurants. Under such circumstances, any effrot aiming remove bacteria, which is totally out of customers consideration, will be definitely in vain, not to mention about imagined raising profit.[本段是不是讲影响顾客购买的其他因素?与上一段有重复的地方,建议两段再重新组织一下]

Finally, the auguer hints that sole improvement in raw oyster is sufficient in qualifing following greater income of oyster producers, but he fails to analyze the relation between these two things. We all know that there exist numerous factors can influence products' price, especially for[/] raw material for food. For example, large scale of fluctuation of price in market or exchangable demand and supply may be included in such elements. What also could considerably affect profit received by producers is cost in the process of production. Hardly any producers can control their cost at the same level or lower after adopting new technology, which is usually expensive, compared with status beforehand. Admitted that all hypotheses above hold some truth, producers might spend a bid amount of money in advertisement to spread the information and convince consumers.[这个不一定吧?] Consequently it is wholly predictable that profit will lower rather than raise.[这个也不能说wholly predictable吧]

As it stands, the conclution lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not adequate enough to lend support to what the arguer maintains.[避免模板] To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the extent to which GCO producers could apply new creation in their production and to which bacteria could be effectively diminished. To better evaluate the argument,[啰嗦了] we would need more information regarding the existence of other possible factors that may also influnce buying habits of oysters and how they act in such a condition. Additionally, more detailed facts reated to cost control in oyster production are also needed to reach reliable and comprehensive conclusion to guide oyster producers' activity. [避免模板]
[全文基本符合要求,但前两段的结构有点问题,建议把各种可能性分成3~5段依次论述.
逻辑错误应该再多找一两个,以充实文章内容.
语言上应该注意的是句型的使用,部分宾语从句有点生硬,破坏了文章的流畅度.另外应该避免中式英语]

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-7-23 10:01 编辑 ]

AnddieUID: 2135826

mercury_tol24 的 argument 170

[老乡见老乡,两眼泪汪汪~~]:D

In this article the author asserts that the price of Gulf Coast oysters will rise and even double to equate with that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. To support this statement the arguer cites the following facts: (1) for the past five years consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for Atlantic Coast's oysters as for Gulf Coast's since harmful bacteria were found in a few Gulf Coast oysters; (2) A scientific process has been devised now to kill the bacteria and then consumers will realize the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters.[第二点不能叫fact吧] Close examination of these facts, however, reveals that the conclusion of the author is not as persuasive as it stands.[用序号列举的写法还是比较少见的,不知道行不行]

In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters than Atlantic Coast's is the result of the discovery that a few raw oysters had harmful bacteria.[is the result of a few raw oysters’ containing harmful bacteria] Many possible reasons besides the discovery of bacteria can explain the difference between market prices of the two sorts of oysters. For example, the oysters from Atlantic Coast might be a new specie that people in California had never tasted before and people felt them having a better taste than Gulf's ones. [一个新物种的说法不太恰当,而且也没有taste a new specie的说法] Or perhaps five years ago the supply of Gulf's oysters increased in California while Atlantic Coast oysters had a decreasing supply in the market. A detailed survey has to be made before we conclude that Gulf Coast oysters are sold at a price half of that of Atlantic Coast oysters.[按照新东方老师的说法,本段的内容作为主要的逻辑错误应该详细论述或分段论述.至少从3个方面证明销量下降不是细菌所致]

In the second place, whether the devised process can really kill the bacteria effectively is unknown, even though people paid less for Gulf Coast oysters just because they are afraid of the bacteria found in oysters. More scientific statistics should be offered to make the public sure that the bacteria are able to cleaned out completely and the quality of oysters from Gulf can reach the criterion of safety. If the process was proved to function unsuccessfully, the price of Gulf Coast oysters would have to keep low or even get lower.  [给人的感觉好像是因为怕失败而不去研究杀灭细菌的技术了] [本段内容也应再充实小小]

In the final place, [due to the] lake of more information about the whole market condition in California, we can not conclude curtly that the price of Gulf Coast oysters is surely to be the same as that of Atlantic's after the devising technique is applied.[价格相同并不是GC的目标] It is likely that five years ago Gulf Coast oysters sold at a lower price than Atlantic's and obviously, after the bacteria incident occurred, it is harder to make consumers willingly pay the same for Gulf's oysters as for Atlantic's.[与第一段重复]  In addition, without knowing the detailed sale data of Gulf Coast producers, it can not be certain that the producers will gain greater profits from their production.  [最后一句是一个很重要的原因,建议另起一段单独论述]

In conclusion, in order to make this argument more persuasive, more marketing data of Gulf Coast oyster producers and more information about the effect of the scientific process have to be obtained and analyzed. Besides, the arguer must offer more strong proof to demonstrate that it is the public fear of the bacteria that leads to the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters. [好像还差一点]Otherwise, this argument can not convince people successfully.
[本文的论证比较合理,语言还是比较流畅的,建议多使用一些高级词汇.
第三段的内容最好与第一段合并,另加一两段详细论述第二个主要逻辑谬误: 经销商不一定会盈利.]

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-7-23 09:59 编辑 ]

AnddieUID: 2135826

licheewu28 (吱吱) 的ARGU 170

TOPIC: ARGUMENT170
WORDS: 458          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-21

Based on the devised process for killing the Gulf Coast oyster bacteria, the author in this argument predicts that there will be an increase of profits for the kind of goods. According to his evidence, the scientific process will kill the bacteria and people will go to buy Gulf Coast oysters.[好像没说到关键,buy不一定会带来profits. 另外will用的过于频繁了] It seems possible for the tendency at first glance, but close review of the fact shows that the argument is unconvincing.

The threshold problem is that the author fails to take into account many other possible effects which influence consumers' choice of different oysters. Although Gulf Coast oysters are safe to eat after anti-bacteria process, it is completely possible that they have special preference for oysters' size, shape and taste of Northeast ones. What's more, probably people in different places have different favors for oysters, and thus it is not guaranteed that consumers anywhere will purchase Gulf Coast oysters. In this case, without ruling out these or other possible elements influencing consumers' selecting, the author cannot provide persuasive assurance that they are willing to buy Gulf Coast oysters.

The second problem is that the only measure of anti-bacteria process is insufficient to drive people to prefer Gulf Coast oysters.[drive sb to prefer不太合适] We all know that any goods[goods是货物的意思] have kind of sales reputation, which is of significance in the market. Once reputation of goods is negative, it is very difficult to reestablish it. Accordingly, oysters are in the same case as goods.[什么意思] Even if consumers know the fact there left no harmful bacteria in the oysters, , it takes a great deal of time for them to get rid of the original negative impression on them. Probably, some other measures to be taken in the seafood market will help. [argument的文章是找出并分析逻辑错误,而不是提出建议] For example, Gulf Coast oyster producers try to make advertisement of safety and deliciousness of their products, or some food experts are invited to manifest the safety truth of the oysters. In his way, consumers might be attracted to purchase their goods.

In addition, the author neglects that profits come from revenue surpassing cost.[cost是成本的意思] He simply thinks that only if there is sales revenue, there will be abundant profits.[这句话是没有问题的.]  As a matter of fact, if investment of anti-bacteria process costs so many funds that a small amount of sales cannot exceed them, [什么意思?] producers will achieve few profits as a consequence. Therefore, since there is no specific comparison of cost and revenue, the author is hasty to claim that profits will follow as expected.[本段论述的内容正确.但好像更重要的是检测细菌所用的成本问题. 本段应再写多一些]

From what have been discussed above, this is a superficial argument with no reliable evidence. To support his prediction, the author has to indicate more detailed and objective study about consumers’ willingness to buy Gulf Coast oysters and offer accurate data of investment in making the oysters popular.[结尾应该再充实一些]
[全文的结构不错,段落安排合理,论述也很好.
所欠缺的是对于每一个问题的详细论证,即具体分析可能出现的各种情况和可能性.
在语言上,用词略显单薄,句式有些过于简单,应该增加高级词汇和复合句的使用.]

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-7-23 10:00 编辑 ]

mercury_tol24UID: 2172005

ARGU170 20号作业



In this article, the author claims that Gulf Coast oyster(GCO) producers could expect more profits due to the invention of a process for killing the bacteria, which is assumed the reason why GCO is only half the price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster(NACO)（which is assumed the reason why the price of GCO is only half that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster(NACO)）.However, this conclusion is based on a series of（换成several好一点？） false assumption（）, each of which can weaken the whole process of deduction. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws（这一句好像可以不要吧？）.

First of all, the argument suffers from a fallacy of equivocation（这一主题句好像过于简单了，可以再扩充一下，让人你看就明白这一段要讲的内容）. According to the mere fact that a new process of killing bacteria has been invented, it is unstandable（好像没有这个词） to induce that consumers will be aware of GCO's increasing safety, which is a prerequisite of higher price of GCO. Whether this process is mature and ready to apply in mass production of oyster（这个科学技术没有用于oysters的大规模生产）, or whether this process is effective enough to kill the bacteria that is the main reason of low quality are all things that（换成what） the author should take into consideration to make valid argument. Even if the conditions above are granted, there provides（换成is） no evidence that consumers will be convinced of oyster's quality thus to pay more. In fact, usually people do not establish any cursory trust on any food that had caused problem for a long time（for a long time是修饰do not establish any cursory trust的还是修饰caused problem的？？） until the time is long enough to prove its（换成GCO’s） reliability.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider other relevant factors that may influence consumers' behavior. It is completely possible that other features of NACO's, such as taste, freshness, size, even if color and lifespan etc., are true reasons why people are willing to afford higher price for them, not the bacteria（GCO）. Besides, there is also another possibility- as a matter of fact, NACO possesses nothing better than GCO but status it presents if it is produced especially for upper restaurants. Under such circumstances, any effort aiming to remove bacteria, which is totally out of customers consideration（这一句是指什么？）, will be definitely in vain, not to mention about（去掉ａｂｏｕｔ） imagined raising（用rising） profit.

Finally, the arguer hints that sole improvement in raw oyster is sufficient in qualifying following greater income of oyster producers, but he fails to analyze the relation between these two things(可以再说明白一点，直接说除了oyster的质量以外，还有很多因素影响生产商的利润收入。). We all know that there exist numerous factors can influence products' price,( numerous factors exist that can influence products' price) especially for raw material for food. For example, large scale of fluctuation of price in market or exchangeable（exchangeable是可交换的意思，可以再换个词） demand and supply may be included in such elements. What also could considerably affect the profit received by producers is the cost in the process of production. Hardly any producers can control their cost at the same level or lower after adopting new technology, which is usually expensive, compared with status beforehand. Admitted that all hypotheses above hold some truth, producers might spend a bid amount of money in advertisement to spread the information（好像没有这种用法） and convince consumers. Consequently it is wholly predictable that profit will lower rather than raise（这一句好像有点多余？）.

As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not （is not）adequate enough to lend support to(support) what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the extent to which GCO producers could apply new creation in their production and to which bacteria could be effectively diminished. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the existence of other possible factors that may also influence buying habits of oysters and how they act in such a condition. Additionally, more detailed facts related to cost control in oyster production are also needed to reach reliable and comprehensive conclusion to guide oyster producers' activity.

本文思路较清楚，但语法错误稍微多一些，因而影响语句的通顺

licheewu28UID: 2131182

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs ...
Strategies:
1.Whether the new technologies can save the amount of electricity. According to the argu, the amount of copper in the ore is different significantly, that is, the same amount of ore can extract more or less copper. In this way, even if 40% amount of electricity is reduced, the amount of copper processed is not assured.
2.It is not guaranteed that the new technologies can save the energy in  producing the same amount of copper because the extracted amount of copper depends on use of different technologies and the amount of consumed electricity.
3.It is hasty to come to such a claim before many other situations are available. For example, the problems of cost and environmental pollution.
In a word, the author should take the applicability of the new technologies and production of copper into consideration.

WORDS: 363          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-23

The author predicts in this argument that there will be a significant decrease of electricity in the copper-extraction industry. He provides some evidence to support his expectation, that is, a kind of new extracting technologies can save 40% electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. It seems possible to have such a tendency in the industry, but careful consideration discloses that his prediction is ungrounded.
The threshold problem is whether the new technologies can help save the amount of electricity. As the passage says, the proportion of copper in the ore is greatly different, which means that different amount of copper will be produced from the same amount of ore. In this way, it is not guaranteed that 40% less electricity will process more or as much as copper which the old technologies do. Perhaps 50% less copper is produced from the same amount of ore though electricity is saved, and consequently, to have the same amount of copper, it will take more electricity through the new technology. Thus, it will not necessarily happen that electricity consumed in the industry will decline significantly.
Furthermore, there is no information to prove that the new technology will save electricity when the same amount of copper is extracted since the quantity of copper produced has influence on usage and electricity of both the new and old processes.
What's more important, even if the new technology is advantageous to save the energy, it remains a problem whether it can be put into practical use. It is possible that the process costs a lot of funds to run, which makes many factories give it up. Or maybe the technologies demand other technological supports which are out of normal reach locally. Or perhaps the process could bring a great deal of environmental pollution, which is prohibited by the local government. In addition, even if the technologies are put into use with the problems solved, their applicability is still difficult according to the above discussion. In this case, these or other basic problems will lead to failure of using the new technologies and the decrease of electricity will not occur definitely as the argument claims.
To sum up, this is a rash deduction. To support his predication, the author should take into account of applicability of the new technology and the detailed production situation of copper.