Argument170 有拍必回

woodmanUID：161906

170 For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much foroysters from the northeastern AtlanticCoast as for Gulf Coastoysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a fewraw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have nowdevised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware ofthe increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to payas much for Gulf Coastas for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coastoyster producers will follow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.杀菌方法不能保证顾客愿意购买G虾
2.即使顾客愿意购买G虾，也不一定能接受与A相同的价格
3. 即使顾客愿意以与A相同的价格购买G虾，高利润无法保证

The arguerconcludes that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coastas for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and this will ensure greater profitsfor Gulf Coast oyster producers. His view seemsto be sound and convincing at first glance. However, I’m afraid his argumentcan hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

Firstly, thearguer fails to provide relevant information to prove that the process forkilling the bacteria devised by scientists would ensure customers’ willingnessto buy Gulf Coast oysters. It is well-known thatonce the reputation of a certain product is destroyed, it is hard to regain. Sodoes the Gulf Coast oysters. Though process is devisedto kill the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters, customersmight be still afraid of its effect, since such bacteria might experience a rapidvariation or evolvement which makes the process fail to kill them. If thesewere the case, customers would tend to buy Atlantic Coastoysters which have no such bacteria. From this point, the argument would bequestionable, at best.

Secondly, even ifcustomers are not worried about the harmful bacteria any more, they might be notwilling to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. As we all know, a goodtaste sometimes is crucial when a customer valuing the food they purchase. Ifthe scientific process degrades the taste of the Gulf Coastoysters, then such oysters might not be welcomed by customers. Besides, if theprocess involves hightemperature to kill bacteria, nutrient content might be largelydestroyed as a result of suchtemperature. Thus, customers would not spend much money for oystersthat have little or even no valuable nutrition. If so, the price customerscould accept must be far lower than that of northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters which have better taste and higher nutrition. Hence, the author’s claimis problematic.

Finally, giventhat consumers would be willing to pay as much for GulfCoast as for northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters, greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producersmight not be warranted. The arguer fails to consider the possibility of highcost. Maybe the process for killing bacteria is costly, and counts for a large proportionof the total income. So, profits might be tiny. In addition, it is entirelypossible, to let more customers know that Gulf Coastoysters are not dangerous to health any more, producers invest a lot in advertising,hence such cost could not be ignored. As a result, Gulf Coastoyster producers might fail to obtain greater profits. Therefore, the argumentis unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

To sum up, topersuade me that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as fornortheastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and ensure greater profits for Gulf Coastoyster producers will follow, the arguer must provide enough information thatcustomers would be willing to buy Gulf Coast oysters, and show me that theycould be glad to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeasternAtlantic Coast oysters. Moreover, the arguer should show me that greaterprofits for Gulf Coast oyster producers could be acquired.

[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-8-9 14:20 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

170 For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much foroysters from the northeastern AtlanticCoast as for Gulf Coastoysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a fewraw Gulf Coast oysters. (这个地方我觉得 这是个后此谬误 我觉得应该算逻辑链里比较严重的错误？)But scientists have nowdevised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware ofthe increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to payas much for Gulf Coastas for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coastoyster producers will follow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.杀菌方法不能保证顾客愿意购买G虾
2.即使顾客愿意购买G虾，也不一定能接受与A相同的价格
3. 即使顾客愿意以与A相同的价格购买G虾，高利润无法保证
第三层可以放掉或和第二层一起合为profitable  1后此 2 新方法很快实施而且无副作用

The arguerconcludes that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coastas for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and this will ensure greater profitsfor Gulf Coast oyster producers. His view seemsto be sound and convincing at first glance. However, I’m afraid his argumentcan hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

Firstly, thearguer fails to provide relevant information to prove that the process forkilling the bacteria devised by scientists would ensure customers’ willingnessto buy Gulf Coast oysters. It is well-known thatonce the reputation of a certain product is destroyed, it is hard to regain. Sodoes the Gulf Coast oysters. Though process is devisedto kill the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters, customersmight be still afraid of its effect, since such bacteria might experience a rapidvariation or evolvement which makes the process fail to kill them. If thesewere the case, customers would tend to buy Atlantic Coastoysters which have no such bacteria. From this point, the argument would bequestionable, at best.

Secondly, even ifcustomers are not worried about the harmful bacteria any more, they might be notwilling to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. As we all know, a goodtaste sometimes is crucial when a customer valuing the food they purchase. Ifthe scientific process degrades the taste of the Gulf Coastoysters, then such oysters might not be welcomed by customers. Besides, if theprocess involves hightemperature to kill bacteria, nutrient content might be largelydestroyed as a result of suchtemperature. Thus, customers would not spend much money for oystersthat have little or even no valuable nutrition. If so, the price customerscould accept must be far lower than that of northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters which have better taste and higher nutrition. Hence, the author’s claimis problematic.
我感觉反例都没问题 硬要挑刺的话就是反例越可信越好  但是还是前面的逻辑链掉了～～

Finally, giventhat consumers would be willing to pay as much for GulfCoast as for northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters, greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producersmight not be warranted. The arguer fails to consider the possibility of highcost. Maybe the process for killing bacteria is costly, and counts for a large proportionof the total income. So, profits might be tiny. In addition, it is entirelypossible, to let more customers know that Gulf Coastoysters are not dangerous to health any more, producers invest a lot in advertising,hence such cost could not be ignored. As a result, Gulf Coastoyster producers might fail to obtain greater profits. Therefore, the argumentis unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

To sum up, to persuade me that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as fornortheastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and ensure greater profits for Gulf Coastoyster producers will follow, the arguer must provide enough information thatcustomers would be willing to buy Gulf Coast oysters, and show me that theycould be glad to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeasternAtlantic Coast oysters. Moreover, the arguer should show me that greaterprofits for Gulf Coast oyster producers could be acquired

joyceningUID：2314914

The arguer concludes that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coastas as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and this will ensure greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. His view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

Firstly, the arguer fails to provide relevant information to prove that the process for killing the bacteria devised by scientists would ensure customers’ willingness to buy Gulf Coast oysters. It is well-known that once the reputation of a certain product is destroyed, it is hard to regain. So does the Gulf Coast oysters. Though process is devised to kill the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters, customers might be still afraid of its effect, since such bacteria might experience a rapidvariation or evolvement(?) which makes the process fail to kill them. If these were the case, customers would tend to buy Atlantic Coastoysters which have no such bacteria. From this point, the argument would be questionable, at best.

Secondly, even ifcustomers are not worried about the harmful bacteria any more, they might be not willing to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. As we all know, a goodtaste sometimes is crucial when a customer valuing the food they purchase. If the scientific process degrades the taste of the Gulf Coastoysters, then such oysters might not be welcomed by customers. Besides, if theprocess involves hightemperature to kill bacteria, nutrient content might be largelydestroyed as a result of suchtemperature. Thus, customers would not spend much money for oystersthat have little or even no valuable nutrition. If so, the price customerscould accept must be far lower than that of northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters which have better taste and higher nutrition. Hence, the author’s claimis problematic.跟上一段的本质是一样的，就是这个科学家的杀菌方法不一定会带来价格的上升，但是你这一段的前提是，如果顾客不担心细菌了。我觉得，反了。应该是先说，美味导致的高价格，所以跟细菌没关系，即使没有了细菌，也不会是价钱升高。第二段在说，即使是因为细菌的关系，这个杀菌方法可能无效，不能消除顾客的顾虑

Finally, giventhat consumers would be willing to pay as much for GulfCoast as for northeastern Atlantic Coastoysters, greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producersmight not be warranted. The arguer fails to consider the possibility of highcost. Maybe the process for killing bacteria is costly, and counts for a large proportionof the total income. So, profits might be tiny. In addition, it is entirelypossible, to let more customers know that Gulf Coastoysters are not dangerous to health any more, producers invest a lot in advertising,hence such cost could not be ignored. As a result, Gulf Coastoyster producers might fail to obtain greater profits. Therefore, the argumentis unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

To sum up, to persuade me that consumers will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as fornortheastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and ensure greater profits for Gulf Coastoyster producers will follow（没必要再重复一遍，觉得罗嗦了）, the arguer must provide enough information thatcustomers would be willing to buy Gulf Coast oysters, and show me that theycould be glad to pay Gulf Coast oysters for the same price as for northeasternAtlantic Coast oysters. Moreover, the arguer should show me that greaterprofits for Gulf Coast oyster producers could be acquired

[ 本帖最后由 joycening 于 2007-8-9 23:51 编辑 ]