argument170-[Spring 小组]-第３次作业

gloriaguo1986UID: 2232808

Argument 170　　For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oyster 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: 559
　　In this argument, the author claims that as long as consumers in California realize that the safety of Gulf Coast oysters has been increased, producers there will earn greater profits as a result of people's willing to pay as much for oysters from  the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for those from Gulf Coast. It appears to be plausible at first glance, while giving second thought we can find the argument contains several facets that are questionable. I will discuss each facet in turn.
　　The first problem with argument involves the unwarranted reason why consumers are glad to buy oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast, whose price is as twice as that of Gulf Coast oysters. The author attempts to throw the whole problem to the harmful bacteria found in a few raw oysters from Gulf Coast. But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For instance, perhaps people find that northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters taste way better than oysters from Gulf Coast or perhaps it is much more convenient for citizens in California to buy oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast instead of ones from Gulf Coast.
　　Even assuming that it is the finding of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters that resulted in the decline in the price of those oysters, whether the new process devised by scientists for killing the bacteria will necessarily lead to increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters is still open to question. How can produces prove to consumers that the harmful bacteria have been killed? Even if they can, how can they explain whether the process will damage the taste of oysters or kill some beneficial nutrition in oysters at the same time?
　　Even assuming that the process for killing the bacteria is effective and has no side effect, it does not mean that consumers would like to buy Gulf Coast oysters at an equal price. It is widely acknowledged that reputation is easy to destroy but hard to rebuild. Even aware of the recent devise to kill the bacteria, consumers would very probably be still afraid of this problem. If they withhold their credence to such bacteria-killing devise, they would still not buy Gulf Coast oyster. It may take a long time and need a strenuous work to conciliate their fear.
　　Finally, even if people would pay as much for oysters of Gulf Coast as those of the northeastern Atlantic Coast, the claim that greater profits for producers will follow thereby is unwarranted. Oyster producers' overall profitability is a function of revenue and expenses relating to the whole oyster market. What's more, the cost of the process may be very expensive, thus makes Gulf Coast oyster producers profitless.
　　In summary, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide assurances that other factors contributing to the decline in the price of oysters from Gulf Coast have been ruled out, and that the new devise will be effective without any side-effect. To better assess the argument I would need to know whether consumers still withhold their credence, and if so how long will it take to rebuild their reputation for Gulf Coast oyster producers. I would also need detailed cost, including the cost of the process, and income, to determine the likelihood that greater profits for producers will subsequently follow.  
　　　谢谢帮拍！

machelleUID: 2348066

In this argument, the author claims that as long as consumers in California realize that the safety of Gulf Coast oysters has been increased, producers there will earn greater profits as a result of people's willing to pay as much for oysters from  the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for those from Gulf Coast. It appears to be plausible at first glance, while giving second thought we can find the argument contains several facets that are questionable. I will discuss each facet in turn.
　　The first problem with argument involves the unwarranted reason why consumers are glad to buy oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast, whose price is as twice as that of Gulf Coast oysters. The author attempts to throw the whole problem to the harmful bacteria found in a few raw oysters from Gulf Coast. But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For instance, perhaps people find that northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters taste way better than oysters from Gulf Coast or perhaps it is much more convenient for citizens in California to buy oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast instead of ones from Gulf Coast.
　　Even assuming that it is the finding of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters that resulted in the decline in the price of those oysters, whether the new process devised by scientists for killing the bacteria will necessarily lead to increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters is still open to question. How can produces【1】 prove to consumers that the harmful bacteria have been killed? Even if they can, how can they explain【2】 whether the process will damage the taste of oysters or kill some beneficial nutrition in oysters at the same time?
　　Even assuming that the process for killing the bacteria is effective and has no side effect, it does not mean that consumers would like to buy Gulf Coast oysters at an equal price. It is widely acknowledged that reputation is easy to destroy but hard to rebuild. Even aware of the recent devise to kill the bacteria, consumers would very probably be still afraid of this problem. If they withhold their credence to such bacteria-killing devise, they would still not buy Gulf Coast oyster. It may take a long time and need a strenuous work to conciliate their fear.
　　Finally, even if people would pay as much for oysters of Gulf Coast as those of the northeastern Atlantic Coast, the claim that greater profits for producers will follow thereby is unwarranted. Oyster producers' overall profitability is a function of revenue and expenses relating to the whole oyster market. What's more, the cost of the process may be very expensive, thus makes Gulf Coast oyster producers profitless.
　　In summary, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide assurances that other factors contributing to the decline in the price of oysters from Gulf Coast have been ruled out, and that the new devise will be effective without any side-effect. To better assess the argument I would need to know whether consumers still withhold their credence, and if so how long will it take to rebuild their reputation for Gulf Coast oyster producers. I would also need detailed cost, including the cost of the process, and income, to determine the likelihood that greater profits for producers will subsequently follow.
【1】这个词可以换一下，一开始读时都不大理解是谁
【2】这里用explain这个词读起来怪怪的。
小结：
这篇文章几乎把所有的错误均找出来了，文章的层次编排很好
楼主的语言很流畅，用词丰富，只有少数句子的词语读起来有点奇怪。

[ 本帖最后由 machelle 于 2007-11-11 22:11 编辑 ]