ARGUMENT170 [Victors小组]7月7日作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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: 575          TIME: 00:30:00         

In this argument, the author concludes that consumers would be willing to pay more for Gulf Coast oysters and producers of such oyster would get more profits. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that consumers were willing to pay the high price for Atlantic Coast oysters in last five years after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. Moreover, the author points out that scientists have found a process to kill the bacteria. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that people changed to have Atlantic oysters instead of Gulf ones because of the bacteria found in the latter ones. The only evidence provided in the passage is the chronological order between them. However, this is not sufficient for establishing the causal relationship between these two events. Maybe there was the study indicating more nutrients contained in the Atlantic oysters so that people took the recommendation to take them. Or perhaps only Atlantic Coast oysters were available at the restaurant and home prepare for oysters was difficult at that time. Without eliminating or even considering such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the conclusion based on it.

Even assuming that bacteria found in Gulf oysters made people replaced them with Atlantic oysters on the table in last five years, even the latter ones cost about twice as much, no promise could be made that people would like to buy them again, since new method have been found to kill the bacteria. First, the information about the study is too vague to be informative. There's no indication about who conducted the study and whether the method could be practical. It is totally possible that scientists funded by Gulf coast oyster producers carried out the study so that the reliability still remains to be a question. Or maybe the method is only available in high-tech labs, while restaurant could not be able to do that. Secondly, even the study is reliable and it could be easy performed to kill the bacteria, common sense informs us that the thought among people for food safety is not easily be reversed simply for the reason of one study, let alone that people would like to pay much more than it used to be. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that people would like to pay higher price to have those oysters.

Finally, the author overlooks other factors that relate to the profits. Profit is the function of revenues and costs. Even granted that more oysters could be sold in higher price, no warrant that same costs in cultivating, storing, transportation and so on could be made. Maybe other process, just like the killing process, would cost times of the one it used to be, so that the margin is much less.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidences--maybe by polls among residents--to show that people would not care much about the price of oysters and where they come from. In addition, the author should assure us that it was due to the contamination found in Gulf Coast oysters that people changed to have Atlantic ones. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there are other choices for people, other than the two types of oysters, and balance the revenues and costs of selling oysters.

H-KevinUID: 2182070

原帖由 jennetrj 于 2007-7-8 10:20 发表
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: 575          TIME: 00:30:00         

In this argument, the author concludes that consumers would be willing to pay more for Gulf Coast oysters and producers of such oyster would get more profits. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that consumers were willing to pay the high price for Atlantic Coast oysters in last five years after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. Moreover, the author points out that scientists have found a process to kill the bacteria. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that people changed to have Atlantic oysters instead of Gulf ones because of the bacteria found in the latter ones. The only evidence provided in the passage is the chronological order between them. However, this is not sufficient for establishing the causal relationship between these two events. Maybe there was the study indicating more nutrients contained in the Atlantic oysters so that people took the recommendation to take them. Or perhaps only Atlantic Coast oysters were available at the restaurant and home prepare for oysters was difficult at that time(这个观点比较牵强吧？). Without eliminating or even（感觉很别扭，前后关系可以用这个词吗？） considering such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept（两个词的意思一样的） the conclusion based on it.

Even assuming that bacteria found in Gulf oysters made people replaced them with Atlantic oysters on the table in last five years, even(这两个even是什么意思在这里？不太明白) the latter ones cost about twice as much, no promise could be made that people would like to buy them again, since new method have been found to kill the bacteria. First, the information about the study is too vague to be informative. There's no indication about who conducted the study and whether the method could be practical. It is totally possible that scientists funded by Gulf coast oyster producers carried out the study so that the reliability still remains to be a question.（这一点是不用攻击的） Or maybe the method is only available in high-tech labs, while restaurant could not be able to do that. Secondly, even the study is reliable and it could be easy performed to kill the bacteria, common sense informs us that the thought among people for food safety is not easily be reversed simply for the reason of one study, let alone that people would like to pay much more than it used to be. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that people would like to pay higher price to have those oysters.

Finally, the author overlooks other factors that relate to the profits. Profit is the function of revenues and costs. Even granted that more oysters could be sold in higher price, no warrant that same costs in cultivating, storing, transportation and so on could be made（感觉扯远了，kill的成本倒是可以考虑一下）. Maybe other process, just like the killing process, would cost times of the one it used to be, so that the margin is much less.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidences--maybe by polls among residents--to show that people would not care much about the price of oysters and where they come from. In addition, the author should assure us that it was due to the contamination found in Gulf Coast oysters that people changed to have Atlantic ones. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there are other choices for people, other than the two types of oysters, and balance the revenues and costs of selling oysters.

文中太多的even了，读起来很怪。文章结构还是比较清楚地