Argument170 【0706G－LOVEAW小组】第16次作业

小猫儿UID: 2297873

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.

1、 消费者愿意买AC的原因不一定只有有害细菌的问题
2、  设计出杀灭细菌的工艺不能保证一定可以取得好的效果
3、  即使安全性提高了，消费者不一定可以接受价钱的提高，既然GC与AC的价格一样了，为什么要买曾经有问题的牡蛎呢？
4、  利润不一定增加，也许新工艺使得GC的成本大幅提高

The arguer hastily draws the conclusion that the sales of Gulf Coast (GC) oysters and the profits for GC oyster producers will increase after the new process for killing the bacteria is taken, which is too arbitrary to convince anybody.

In the first place, I can not simply accept that the reason why consumers would like GC oysters instead of AC oysters is merely the harmful bacteria found in a few raw GC oysters. It is possible that aside from the harmful bacteria once is found in GC oysters, the taste of them is also worse than that of AC oysters. Moreover, chances are the consumers have been bored with GC oysters after several years of the same taste so that they want a fresh taste to satisfy their gestation. Without ruling out both these possibilities, the assumption that consumers are not desirous to GC oysters merely because of the harmful bacteria found in them once.

In the second place, the high quality of GC oysters can not be ensured even though the new process for killing the bacteria is taken. It is common sense that a new skill should be experimented for several years before the judgment is made. However, there is no such information of experiments for the new process for killing the bacteria provided in the argument, which makes the assumption that GC oysters will keep away from harmful bacteria after the application of this new process.

In the third place, even if the security of GC oysters can be ensured, the increased price of GC oysters may not be acceptable consumers. It is assumed in the argument that the consumers would like to spend as much as AC oysters on GC oysters, which means the price is twice as much as GC oysters before. The assumption is unreasonable according to the conjecture of consumers’ mentality. The understandable truth would be that after the “bacteria events”, the consumers would consider the GC oysters less worthy than before instead of higher worth which is assumed by the arguer.

In addition, there is no forcible information that the profits will roar even if the three assumptions above all come into existence. It can be ratiocinated that the new process for killing the harmful bacteria may lead to higher cost for the disposal of GC oysters for the producers, which makes the higher profits assumed by the arguer doubtful as it stands.

To sum up, I can not simply accept what is discussed in the argument so dubious as has been pointed out above.