Argument170 Spring－第三次作业

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

Argument 170
For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oyster 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 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：774   用时：2小时   现在都没有限时写的，想多写一点，练习表达。大家狂拍啊！

In this argument, the author argues that consumers would rebuild interests in Gulf Coast oysters for that a process for killing the bacteria that were found in some Gulf Coast oysters five years ago and caused the sale of Gulf Coast oysters declined have been devised by scientists; and the following sale increasing will bring greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. After a closely examination, I find too many logical flaws to convince the prediction the author gives out.

Firstly, the author makes causality between harmful bacteria found in some raw Gulf Coast oysters and the condition that consumers preferred to pay much more to buy Atlantic Coast oyster rather than Gulf Coast oysters. And the only reason for building this relation is that the shift of consumers' interests happened after bacteria found in oysters. However, some other important causes which can also explain the change of consumers' inclination have been neglected. It is possible that most consumers reckon the northeastern Atlantic Coast tasting well. Or Atlantic Coast oysters were well advertised by some propaganda, such as claiming the oysters including higher nutrition than others, or being more nature and non-polluted, which aroused consumers' interests. Even because Atlantic Coast oyster just has so nice looking that consumer would rather make decision according to his or her eyes. All of these possible explanations, I think, can be viewed as the reasons to answer why consumers were inclined to Atlantic Coast oysters but not Gulf Coast oysters as well. Yet the author neither considers some of the above possibilities or others, nor presents strong evidences to support that the exposure of bacteria founded in Gulf Coast oysters is the main cause of the distraction of consumers' willing.

Secondly, even I concede that the decline of demands of Gulf Coast oysters results from bacteria found in some of them and consumers having a big anxious of it, no more evidence is given out to convince us that the process designed to kill those bacteria is actually effective. One might ask what percents of bacteria can be killed through this process. Or some of us may be worried about whether the nutrition of oysters can be preserved after processing. If the process kills most bacteria, yet at the same time, diminishes many beneficial compositions, the design of this process is not successful and, in my opinion, will have no marketing. Therefore, no sufficient evidence to show the results of the new designed process and we have to doubt its reliability and effectiveness.

Thirdly, the author arbitrarily predicts that, with the help of the new designed process, consumers will rebuild confidence with Gulf Coast oysters and be willing to buy Gulf Coast oyster with the same pay as Atlantic Coast oyster; and the coming increasing sale of Gulf Coast oyster will bring greater profits to its producers. On one hand, the author does not consider the risk that the inclinations of consumers may be different from five years ago. It means that even the consumers know that the new designed process is able to kill bacteria once found in Gulf Coast oysters, they may not go back to purchase Gulf Coast oysters since they have formed a habit to buy Atlantic Coast oysters or preferred the taste of Atlantic Coast oysters. If this is true, the design of the process to kill bacteria of Gulf Coast oysters cannot turn the current sale conditions to the previous. Then, a greater profit for producers is merely an empty promise. On the other hand, even if some consumers truly become interested in Gulf Coast oysters again and are willing to pay higher for Gulf Coast oysters, we cannot assure that these regained consumers would balance the spending on the process, and bring great profits to producers. One possibility is that the cost of using this new designed process is large while only small potations of consumers are regained by this huge input. Since lacking of adequate considerations and analysis of the whole market, the prediction the author proposes may be a mislead one.

In conclusion, I cannot support this argument with so many logical flaws. In order to improve its convincing, the author should give more strong evidences to prove that the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters five year ago is the key to the decline of its sales. And the author should make a considerable analysis and believable prediction for the market to guarantee that adequate consumers would be willing to pay higher for Gulf Coast oysters after promotion of above referred new bacteria-killing process, and Gulf Coast oyster producers can indeed make great profits from their investments.

[ 本帖最后由 dairuxin512 于 2007-11-3 18:47 编辑 ]

shanxinhpUID: 2311857

In this argument, the author argues that consumers would rebuild interests in Gulf Coast oysters for that a process for killing the bacteria that were found in some Gulf Coast oysters five years ago and caused the sale of Gulf Coast oysters declined have been devised by scientists; and the following sale increasing will bring greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. After a closely examination, I find too many logical flaws to convince the prediction the author gives out.Firstly, the author makes causality between harmful bacteria found in some raw Gulf Coast oysters and the condition that consumers preferred to pay much more to buy Atlantic Coast oyster rather than Gulf Coast oysters. And the only reason for building this relation is that the shift of consumers' interests happened after bacteria found in oysters. However, some other important causes which can also explain the change of consumers' inclination have been neglected. It is possible that most consumers reckon the northeastern Atlantic Coast tasting well. Or Atlantic Coast oysters were well advertised by some propaganda, such as claiming the oysters including higher nutrition than others, or being more nature and non-polluted, which aroused consumers' interests. Even because Atlantic Coast oyster just has so nice looking that consumer would rather make decision according to his or her eyes. All of these possible explanations, I think, can be viewed as the reasons to answer why consumers were inclined to Atlantic Coast oysters but not Gulf Coast oysters as well. Yet the author neither considers some of the above possibilities or others, nor presents strong evidences to support that the exposure of bacteria founded in Gulf Coast oysters is the main cause of the distraction of consumers' willing.Secondly, even I concede that the decline of demands of Gulf Coast oysters results from bacteria found in some of them and consumers having a big anxious of it, no more evidence is given out to convince us that the process designed to kill those bacteria is actually effective. One might ask what percents of bacteria can be killed through this process. Or some of us may be worried about whether the nutrition of oysters can be preserved after processing. If the process kills most bacteria, yet at the same time, diminishes many beneficial compositions, the design of this process is not successful and, in my opinion, will have no marketing.（语法很好）Therefore, no sufficient evidence to show the results of the new designed process and we have to doubt its reliability and effectiveness.Thirdly, the author arbitrarily predicts that, with the help of the new designed process, consumers will rebuild confidence with Gulf Coast oysters and be willing to buy Gulf Coast oyster with the same pay as Atlantic Coast oyster; and the coming increasing sale of Gulf Coast oyster will bring greater profits to its producers. On one hand, the author does not consider the risk that the inclinations of consumers may be different from five years ago. It means that even the consumers know that the new designed process is able to kill bacteria once found in Gulf Coast oysters, they may not go back to purchase Gulf Coast oysters since they have formed a habit to buy Atlantic Coast oysters or preferred the taste of Atlantic Coast oysters. If this is true, the design of the process to kill bacteria of Gulf Coast oysters cannot turn the current sale conditions to the previous. Then, a greater profit for producers is merely an empty promise. On the other hand, even if some consumers truly become interested in Gulf Coast oysters again and are willing to pay higher for Gulf Coast oysters, we cannot assure that these regained consumers would balance the spending on the process, and bring great profits to producers. One possibility is that the cost of using this new designed process is large while only small potations（portations） of consumers are regained by this huge input. Since lacking of adequate considerations and analysis of the whole market, the prediction the author proposes may be a mislead one. In conclusion, I cannot support this argument with so many logical flaws. In order to improve its convincing, the author should give more strong evidences to prove that the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters five year ago is the key to the decline of its sales. And the author should make a considerable analysis and believable prediction for the market to guarantee that adequate consumers would be willing to pay higher for Gulf Coast oysters after promotion of above referred new bacteria-killing process, and Gulf Coast oyster producers can indeed make great profits from their investments.

A要比I流畅多了，不知道说什么了，继续努力了

carlos1016UID: 2210397

[quote][/quote]All of these possible explanations, I think, can be viewed as the reasons to answer why consumers were inclined to Atlantic Coast oysters but not Gulf Coast oysters as well.

个人觉得Argument里面最好不要出现"I think"这样的结构吧，原因：要理性分析，不能加入主观想法。

如有不正确之处，欢迎大家指正！