argument170 Spring-第三次作业

林周孟UID: 2341714

      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:528    Time: 120 minutes    Date: 2007-11-8
The argument points out that ever since harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf coast oysters, consumers in California have been willing to spend twice as much on oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as on Gulf Coast oysters.Then the argument concludes that once consumers become aware of  the comparative safety of Gulf Coast oysters,they are much probable to be ready to pay the same for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters,and then profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will thereby increase,basing on the fact that scientists have now developed a process for killing the bacteria.Through careful scrutiny,I find the argument flawed in several critical respects.
In the first place,the bacteria found in a few raw Gulf coast oysters do not have to be the exclusive reason for the fact that California consumers’ unwillingness of buying bacteria Gulf coast oysters.In my observation as a consumer ,people’s preference of food should be based on nutritional conditions,tastes,appearance,size,and so forth.Perhaps the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast have special nutritional ingredient,appearance,or other quality that cater to consumers in California.Without considering and ruling out these and other possible alternative explanations,the argument can not assume that the discovery of bacteria is the solo reason for California consumers’ preference of oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast.
In the second place,the assumption that consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters for the reason that scientists have now developed a bacteria-killing process is unwarranted.In my point of view,reputation is easy to destroy,but rather difficult to establish or regain,especially when a reputation was ever destroyed.And preference is hard to change due to the comparatively steady individual interest and favor,especially when something that involved one’s five years’ favor.It is entirely possible consumers in California still fear of the safety of Gulf Coast oyster due to its ever bad fame,while continue prefer oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast ,even though Gulf Coast has employed the process for killing the bacteria.
The final uncompelling argument which I think is the most important is that even if consumers pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters on the basis of employing the bacteria-killing process, Gulf Coast oyster producers can not be necessary gain greater profits.As we know,the profit is a matter involved in input and output.Considering the  process for killing the bacteria is newly developed,perhaps the technology is not widely used and the cost of using the technology is rather expensive.If this is a case,the cost may transcend the revenue for Gulf Coast oyster producers,which lead to less profits that Gulf Coast oyster producers may finally achieve.
To sum up,the argument is obviously unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it ,the argument should substantiate the causal relatationship between bacteria and California consumers’ unwillingness of buying Gulf Coast oysters.Also,the argument should provide information that once Gulf Coast oyster producers employ the bacteria-killing process,consumers in California will pay as much for Gulf Coast oyster as for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast.Finally,to better assess it,the cost of employing the newly developed technology is low compared to the revenue the producers will achieve,which may in the end result greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers.

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

The argument points out that ever since harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf coast oysters, consumers in California have been willing to spend twice as much on oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as on Gulf Coast oysters.(good summarization of the argument) Then the argument concludes that once consumers become aware of the comparative safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are much probable to be ready to(eager to,be ready to是准备的意思吧) pay the same for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, so that the profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will increase, basing on the fact that scientists have now developed a process for killing the bacteria. Through careful scrutiny, I find the argument flawed in several critical respects.In the first place, the bacteria found in a few raw Gulf coast oysters do not have to be the exclusive reason for the fact that California consumers’ unwillingness of buying bacteria Gulf coast oysters. In my observation as a consumer, people’s preference of food should be based on nutritional conditions, tastes, appearance, size, and so forth. Perhaps the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast have special nutritional ingredient, appearance, or other quality that cater to consumers in California. (次论据可+producers in the northeasten Atlantic Coast improve the appearance, size等等人可控制因素,使得上面的论证成立,从而避开对为什么5年前购买趋势不是这样的讨论)Without considering and ruling out these and other possible alternative explanations, the argument cannot assume(不妨说成convince me,更主动) that the discovery of bacteria is the solo reason for California consumers’ preference of oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast.In the second place, the assumption that consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters for the reason that scientists have now developed a bacteria-killing process is unwarranted.(good sentence) In my point of view, reputation is easy to destroy, but rather difficult to establish or regain,(good idiom, but use too often! maybe we should change the size) especially when a reputation was ever destroyed. Moreover, preference is hard to change due to the comparatively steady individual interest and favor, especially when something that involved one’s five years’ favor.(good!) If that is the case,it is entirely possible that consumers in California still fear of the safety of Gulf Coast oyster due to its ever bad fame, while continue prefer oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast ,even though Gulf Coast has employed the process for killing the bacteria.(The speaker assumes too inconsiderately that, as the consumers are aware enough of the fact that the new process for killing the bacteria will be efficacious as they would behavior as the speaker predicts.)The final argument which I think is the most important is that even if consumers pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters on the basis of employing the bacteria-killing process, Gulf Coast oyster producers cannot be necessary gain greater profits. (The speaker unfairly assumes that if the consumers will pay, as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as they once were, the Gulf Coast oyster producers could necessarily be profitable as a result.相当于对赢利可能性的判定,可以使用此摸版,规范化.) As we know, the profit is a matter involved in revenue and expense. Considering the process for killing the bacteria is newly developed, perhaps the technology is not widely used and the cost of using the technology is rather expensive. If that is the case, the cost may transcend the revenue for Gulf Coast oyster producers, which lead to less profit that Gulf Coast oyster producers may finally achieve.To sum up, the argument is obviously unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the argument should substantiate the causal relationship between bacteria and California consumers’ unwillingness of buying Gulf Coast oysters. In addition, the argument should provide information that once Gulf Coast oyster producers employ the bacteria-killing process, consumers in California would pay as much for Gulf Coast oyster as for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast. To better assess it, the cost of employing the newly developed technology is low compared to the revenue the producers will achieve, which may in the end result greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers.

good argument! Congratulations of your obviously advancement in writing arguments.
Only few lapsus have been discovered.

林周孟UID: 2341714

真的很感谢lifeng_913,一起加油