argument170 [Jet小组]第十三次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

TOPIC: 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: 551          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-28 22:24:10

This argument draws a conclusion that consumers will like to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters and Gulf Coast oyster producers will be benefited a lot, since the consumers will aware that Gulf Coast oysters are safe. To substantiate the claim, the arguer cites that scientists have now invented a means to kill the bacteria, while harmful bacteria were found in some raw Gulf Coast oysters. However, a careful examination of the argument will show how groundless it is.

First of all, the arguer claims that after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw the Gulf Coast oysters, the payment of them started shortly. In this circumstance, the arguer suggests that it is because the found of bacteria that cause the short payment. However, there is no evidence to prove this conclusion. Maybe the short payment is not caused by the found of bacteria but the quality of Gulf Coast oysters is not good any more, or some Gulf Coast oyster producers changed their deals. If the arguer can not prove that there is causal relationship between the lack of payment and the found of bacteria, I can not be convinced that the description is rational.

Secondly, the arguer fails to provide statistic data to show how many Gulf Coast oysters are suffered by bacteria. It is possible that the bacteria are found only in 0.1 percent of the oysters. In this situation, people may consider that the bacteria problem is casual and would never happen again so the affect brought by the bacteria is little since the amount of oysters with bacteria is small.

What is more, the arguer provides that scientists have now devised a way to kill the bacteria. However, the arguer does not provide any evidence to show that the devise would be put into application and even if it would, the arguer does not say when it would be applied. Maybe the method is proved not effective and would never be used, or even if it is effective, maybe it would be applied 10 years later. In this circumstance, it is not acceptable that customers would like to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters.

In addition, even though the process of killing the bacteria would be used soon and therefore customers would like to pay more, the conclusion that greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow is not rational. There is no evidence to show that the payment of the producers to produce the oysters would not arise and the rent of the room which is used to sell the oysters would not be richer. If the fact is the payment of the producers would be higher, the profits for them would not be greater.

In sum, the argument is full of flaws and lack of carefully logical cogitation. To improve it, the arguer should offer more evidence to show that there is a large number of Gulf Coast oysters suffered from the bacteria and the shorting payment is because that customers are affected by the bacteria but not other reasons. Moreover, the arguer should also prove that the process which can kill the bacteria would be applied soon and there are no other factors would inhibit the oyster producers' profits.