Argument170 Spring小组-第三次作业

lazypiggyUID: 2411706

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. ”

WORD:382        TIME:30min

In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince that the producers of oysters in Gulf Coast can increase their sells and then make a profit by the process which can clear the bacteria up. The major assumptions underlying this argument are that the trend of the decrease in oysters selling in Gulf Coast is owing to the harmful bacteria be found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters; and another one is that consumers will come back again after be informed of the process for killing bacteria. While the argument has some merits, sever critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

Firstly, the arguer fails to provide enough data to show that the decreasing selling is because of bacteria or something else such as the taste which lead the customers to pay twice for the same product. If it’s owing to the taste, the consumers may not be back to pay money for things they’re not interested in, let alone to increase their selling. Moreover, we can’t promise that the process of killing bacteria has no effect on the quality of the oysters and that also contribute to the consumers’ choices.

Secondly, higher price doesn’t represent profit. There’re a vast ocean of things should be taken into consideration when focus on the earning. If the producers take this process to kill bacteria without affecting their product, the cost must be high. Even the producers can sell their oysters with a price which is as twice as it used to be, they can still get back as much as it was before, let alone make great profits.

The last but not the least, it’s about reputation. A good reputation can be ruined by a small thing but only can regain for a long time. The bacteria may not exist in the oysters by the process; however, the customers may not trust in a product easily after things such as finding bacteria in it happened.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make It logically acceptable, the arguer would have to present more facts to prove that bacteria is the main reason why the customers don’t choose oysters in Gulf Coast. Additionally, the arguer must be evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.

[ 本帖最后由 lazypiggy 于 2007-11-16 17:56 编辑 ]

cinda2020UID: 2371432

In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince that the producers of oysters in Gulf Coast can increase their sells and then make a profit by the process which can clear the bacteria up. The major assumptions underlying this argument are that the trend of the decrease in oysters selling in Gulf Coast is owing to the harmful bacteria be found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters; and another one is that consumers will come back again after be informed of the process for killing bacteria. While the argument has some merits, sever critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.
内容总结的稍微有点简单，但是明确提出了论点及自己的态度，很好。
Firstly, the arguer fails to provide enough data to show that the decreasing selling is because of bacteria or something else such as the taste which lead the customers to pay twice for the same product. 1 这里说的不太明确，最好把你说的是哪一个写明，在说不同，再用the same product 是不是不合适。2 细菌不是直接原因证据不足可以写的再扩展一点。If it’s owing to the taste, the consumers may not be back to pay money for things they’re not interested in, let alone to increase their selling. Moreover, we can’t promise that the process of killing bacteria has no effect on the quality of the oysters and that also contribute to the consumers’ choices.

Secondly, higher price doesn’t represent profit. There’re a vast ocean of things should be taken into consideration when focus on the earning. If the producers take this process to kill bacteria without affecting their product, the cost must be high. Even the producers can sell their oysters with a price which is as twice as it used to be, they can still get back as much as it was before, 这里不太明白，是can’t吗，而且需要再多解释两句更好。let alone make great profits.

The last but not the least, it’s about reputation. A good reputation can be ruined by a small thing but only can regain for a long time. The bacteria may not exist in the oysters by the process; however, the customers may not trust in a product easily after things such as finding bacteria in it happened.  虽然短但是这段论证很有说服力。

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make It logically acceptable, the arguer would have to present more facts to prove that bacteria is the main reason why the customers don’t choose oysters in Gulf Coast. Additionally, the arguer must be evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.
论点明确，逻辑清晰。每一小节都能围绕中心句论证。
语法方面我水平有限，就不乱改了，呵呵。
现在能半个小时完成非常好，382字数略少，稍微扩展一点。加油～