argument170 V-March站队作业贴，有拍必回！

爱格UID: 2103778

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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.
WORDS：651          TIME：1:08:16          DATE：2006-2-14

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer draws a conclusion that consumers would like to pay for Gulf Coast as much as for Atlantic Coast oysters which are double charged, and accordingly, greater profits for Gulf Coast oysters will be gained. To support the conclusion, the speaker cites the evidence that the scientists have invented a progress to kill the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters and such method will surly increase the safety of the GC seafood. However, this alone never constitutes compelling a logical argument in favor of the recommendation nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several flaws.

To begin with, the speaker assumes that by the invention of the new progress of killing bacteria found in GC oysters, the consumers will pay twice for it as before, simply because that they are safe again. A careful examination of the statement will reveal how ridiculous it is! Though the oysters are safe again, yet why will people like to pay twice for the same food? Granted that consumers will not mind the former bacteria event and decide to have a try for the GC oysters again, probably they will just pay the same for the same product. The author argues that people will pay twice for the reason that they just like to pay as same as for AC oysters which charge doubled. While there is not any information about how much the AC oysters cost before and maybe after people found the GC oysters can no longer be ate then the AC products raised their price. As a result of GC seafood regains its safety, AC oysters may drop down their price by the law of competition. And so, there will be no greater profits for GC products.

In the second place, the author draws the conclusion depending on the assumption that the GC oysters taste the same after they have been treated by the device killing bacteria. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that the progress of sterilization in food often result in the change of the flavor. And if the taste changed after the process will consumers still like to buy them? Accordingly, if less people like the new taste, how can the greater profits follow? Unfortunately, the arguer does not hold out any information about the sterilization process which can throw over our assumption, and so, the greater profits are not close at hand.

Furthermore, the author does not list the costs of the new device and the daily use of it. As we all know, profit equals to the result of the total income minus the cost, so if the cost is a big number, the profit is inclined to be a small one. Since the statement does not show any hints of the cost of the sterilization, it is not convincing to allege the coming of greater profits.

Even assuming that the taste after the sterilization does not change and the cost of the new device equals to nothing, still have we the question that will people buy the once unsafe food though it seems to be safe again? Reputation is easy to loose to lose but hard to regain. Most of the common people tend to choose the sound reputation brand and avoid the notorious. Once the fame is lost, it is onerous to call it back. While the speaker pretends that nothing happened after the bad event with the new invention and states that consumers will buy the GC oysters as before, which is too absurd.

To sum up, the author has to provide the evidences of the sterilization's cost and whether the GC oysters' taste remains the same to bolster the conclusion. Moreover, the arguer also has to convince us that consumers would like to buy the GC food after the bacteria event.

azaleaUID: 196122

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer draws a conclusion that consumers would like to pay for Gulf Coast as much as for Atlantic Coast oysters which are double charged, and accordingly, greater profits for Gulf Coast oysters will be gained. To support the conclusion, the speaker cites the evidence that the scientists have invented a progress to kill the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters and such method will surly increase the safety of the GC seafood. However, this alone never constitutes compelling a logical argument in favor of the recommendation nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several flaws. [首段其实不需要那么长的 2句话足够了 e.g. the arguer draws a conclusion that consumers would like to pay for Gulf Coast as much as for Atlantic Coast oysters which are double charged, and accordingly, greater profits for Gulf Coast oysters will be gained. merely based on the fact that scientists have invented a progress to kill the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters. I find that this argument suffers from several flaws.]


To begin with, the speaker assumes that by the invention of the new progress of killing bacteria found in GC oysters, the consumers will pay twice for it as before, simply because that they are safe again. A careful examination of the statement will reveal how ridiculous it is! Though the oysters are safe again, yet why will people like to pay twice for the same food? Granted that consumers will not mind the former bacteria event and decide to have a try for the GC oysters again, probably they will just pay the same for the same product. The author argues that people will pay twice for the reason that they just like to pay as same [much] as for AC oysters which charge doubled. While there is not any information about how much the AC oysters cost before and maybe after people found the GC oysters can no longer be ate then the AC products raised their price. As a result of [As a result, when] GC seafood regains its safety, AC oysters may drop down their price[这里搭配不当 可以说AC oysters may see their price drop down, 或者 the price of AC oysters may drop down] by the law of competition. And so, there will be no greater profits for GC products.

In the second place, the author draws the conclusion depending on the assumption that the GC oysters taste the same after they have been treated by the device killing bacteria. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that the progress of sterilization in food often result in the change of the flavor. And if the taste changed after the process will consumers still like to buy them? Accordingly, if less people like the new taste, how can the greater profits follow? Unfortunately, the arguer does not hold out [provide] any information about the sterilization process which can throw over our assumption, and so,[so就好了 and多余了] the greater profits are not close at hand[恩 这句不错].

Furthermore, the author does not list [一般是指列出某类事物中的多个 这里不大合适 可以用reveal/show/point out/imply.. ] the costs of the new device and the daily use[这个指什么？而且下文也没提到！] of it. As we all know, profit equals to the result of the total income minus the cost, so if the cost is a big number, the profit is inclined to be a small one. Since the statement does not show any hints of the cost of the sterilization, it is not convincing to allege the coming of greater profits.

Even assuming that the taste after the sterilization does not change and the cost of the new device equals to nothing, still have we[exists] the question that will people buy the once unsafe food though it seems to be safe again? Reputation is easy to loose[forgot to delete, right? :P] to lose but hard to regain[这句以前看到过 借用得恰倒好处~]. Most of the common people tend to choose the sound reputation brand [读着别扭 改成the brand with sound reputation] and avoid the notorious. Once the fame is lost, it is onerous to call it back. [这句意思和前面有重复] While the speaker pretends that nothing happened after the bad event with the new invention and states that consumers will buy the GC oysters as before, which is too absurd.[这句有语法问题 自己改下吧]

To sum up, the author has to provide the evidences of the sterilization's cost and whether the GC oysters' taste remains the same to bolster the conclusion. Moreover, the arguer also has to convince us that consumers would like to buy the GC food after the bacteria event.[可以加一句, which ruined its reputation]

[写得很不错 就不多说了 再接再厉！]

爱格UID: 2103778

多谢多谢！
今天开始计时拉，发现30分钟只能写440多个字，可分析不了这么清楚了，谢谢azalea开拍场给我们批改！