Argument170 Spring－第三次作业

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

TOPIC: ARGUMENT170 - 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.
WORDS: 778          TIME: 01:17:00          DATE: 2007-11-3 17:50:30

In this argument, the speaker indicates that ever since harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters five years ago, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. The speaker then concludes that once consumers who are made aware of the fact that scientists have devised a process for killing the bacteria would be willing to pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and this trend would help them to gain greater profits. However, the recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
    First of all, the speaker concludes based on a known temporal correlation between harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, at least late, to the former. Whereafter, the speaker unfairly assumes that there is a cause-and-effect relation between them. While a directly temporal correlation is strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself it is not sufficient. Perhaps some climate factors of Gulf Coast such as the movement of warm currents of the ocean, the increase of rainfalls, the alteration of sunlight, leads to both of the two facts that harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster. Without ruling out this and other alternative possibilities, the speaker's assumption that the harmful bacteria discovery is the main reason for California consumers' unwillingness to pay as much for Gulf shrimp during the past five years is still unconvincing.
    Even if twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast dues to the pointed fact that harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and  oyster, the speaker ignores other possible factors, which lead to the higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, such as that the local residents were satiated with the tastes, size, and other qualities of the Gulf Coast oyster, at the same time, the northeastern Atlantic Coast ones provided a distinct taste, a new size. Since the speaker has failed to provide any evidence to consider and rule out this possibility and other alternative ones, the speaker's assertion cannot be taken seriously.
    Secondly, the speaker assumes too inconsiderately that, as the consumers are aware enough of the fact that the new process for killing the bacteria will be efficacious as they would behavior as the speaker predicts. Perhaps after five years of favoring northeastern Atlantic oysters, consumers' tastes and habits are conditioned to them so that they will continue to favor Atlantic oysters. If this is the case, the speaker's prediction that the consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters is unwarranted.
    Even assuming that the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the author provides no firm evidence that the new devised process would be resultful, perhaps the new process can only deal with the seasonal bacteria, not all of them. Even if the new process were adequately effective, perhaps the consumers would be still unaware of it. Even if consumers' awareness of the process, perhaps they will be solicitous about its efficacy all the same, after all, the reputation is very easy to destroy than to regain.
    Finally, even if the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the Gulf Coast oyster producers could not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus, it is entirely possible that Gulf Coast oyster producers must pay much money for the process for killing bacteria, might render it unprofitable despite its popular. Without weighing revenue against expenses, the speaker's conclusion is premature at best.
In sum, the speaker is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the argument's speaker must provide sufficient evidence to consider and rule out other possibilities that likely resulted in the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, and strengthen the argument by convincing me that consumers will pay as much for Gulf's as for Atlantic's after that they are aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information about Gulf Coast oyster producers' profitability before the past five years, and about the costs of the process for killing the bacteria, and so on.

Skeleton:
1.The speaker unfairly assumes that there is a cause-and-effect relation between harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster.
2.The speaker has failed to consider and rule out other alternative possibilities.
3.The speaker assumes too inconsiderately that, as the consumers are aware enough of the fact that the new process for killing the bacteria will be efficacious as they would behavior as the speaker predicts.
4.The speaker unfairly assumes that if the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the Gulf Coast oyster producers could necessarily be profitable as a result.

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

由于周一周二我有考试，所以先占个坐，我周三来帮你看哈！

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

In this argument, the speaker indicates that ever since harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters five years ago, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. The speaker then concludes that once consumers who are made aware of the fact that scientists have devised a process for killing the bacteria would be willing to pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and this trend would help them to gain greater profits. However, the recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantial assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
    First of all, the speaker concludes based on a known temporal correlation between harmful bacteria (were) found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, at least late, to the former.这句话不通，你要修改一下 Whereafter, the speaker unfairly assumes that there is a cause-and-effect relation between them. While a directly temporal correlation is strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself it is not sufficient. Perhaps some climate factors of Gulf Coast such as the movement of warm currents of the ocean, the increase of rainfalls, the alteration of sunlight, leads to both of the two facts that harmful bacteria （were） found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster. Without ruling out this and other alternative possibilities, the speaker's assumption that the harmful bacteria discovery (the discovervy of harmful bacteria) is the main reason for California consumers' unwillingness to pay as much for Gulf shrimp during the past five years is still unconvincing.
    Even if twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast dues to the pointed fact that harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and  oyster, the speaker ignores other possible factors, which lead to the higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, such as that the local residents were satiated with the tastes, size, and other qualities of the Gulf Coast oyster, at the same time, the northeastern Atlantic Coast ones provided a distinct taste, a new size. Since the speaker has failed to provide any evidence to consider and rule out this possibility and other alternative ones, the speaker's assertion cannot be taken seriously.
    Secondly, the speaker assumes too inconsiderately that, as the consumers are aware enough of the fact that the new process for killing the bacteria will be efficacious as they would behavior as the speaker predicts. Perhaps after five years of favoring northeastern Atlantic oysters, consumers' tastes and habits are conditioned to them so that they will continue to favor Atlantic oysters. If this is the case, the speaker's prediction that the consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters is unwarranted.（这一段逻辑不对，前面说作者可能高估了顾客对于这种杀灭细菌的新过程的关注程度，后面又是举了顾客对Atlantic oyster口味的习惯，这两个并没有什么联系啊！）
    Even assuming that the consumers will pay(,) as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were（换成they did), the author provides no firm evidence that the new devised process would be resultful, perhaps the new process can only deal with （the） seasonal bacteria, not all of them. Even if the new process were adequately effective, perhaps the consumers would be still unaware of it. Even if consumers' awareness（换成consumers are aware)of the process, perhaps they will(would) be solicitous about its efficacy all the same, after all, the reputation is very easy to destroy than to regain.（这句话不合适）
    Finally, even if the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the Gulf Coast oyster producers could not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus, it is entirely possible that Gulf Coast oyster producers must pay much money for the process for killing bacteria, might render(rendering) it unprofitable despite its popular. Without weighing revenue against expenses, the speaker's conclusion is premature at best.
In sum, the speaker is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the argument's speaker must provide sufficient evidence to consider and rule out other possibilities that likely resulted in the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster, and strengthen the argument by convincing me that consumers will pay as much for Gulf's as for Atlantic's after that they are aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information about Gulf Coast oyster producers' profitability before the past five years, and about the costs of the process for killing the bacteria, and so on.

Skeleton:
1.The speaker unfairly assumes that there is a cause-and-effect relation between harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters and the twice higher price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster than Gulf Coast oyster.
2.The speaker has failed to consider and rule out other alternative possibilities.
3.The speaker assumes too inconsiderately that, as the consumers are aware enough of the fact that the new process for killing the bacteria will be efficacious as they would behavior as the speaker predicts.
4.The speaker unfairly assumes that if the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the Gulf Coast oyster producers could necessarily be profitable as a result.

本文结构很好，开头和结尾都很规范，提纲中列出的逻辑错误也基本上是本文主要的错误了。但是对于一些逻辑错误的论证还是比较乱，希望作者注意哦！另外，作者的语言还有一些问题，如果觉得写长句困难，可以写一些短的句子，但一定要保证语法正确，句子通顺。