argument170 [Jet]小组第十三次作业

reachyUID: 2276902

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: 496          TIME: 1:14:07          DATE: 2008-3-1

The arguer conclude that the consumers will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters since scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria, which were found in Gulf Coast oysters and harmful to human. To support his conclusion, the arguer brings up the case that consumers would pay twice price for Atlantic Coast oysters rather than Gulf Coast ones. It seems reasonable; however, there are several flaws by a careful consideration.

The trend that consumers in California would like pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters in the past five years began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast ones. However, it is illustrated that the reason for the changing of consumers is frightened by the harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters. Because the arguments do not tell us what the situation was before the finding happened. Maybe the Atlantic Coast oysters are always much better and tastier than the Gulf Coast, or the Atlantic Coast might be paid three or four times as much as the Gulf Coast ones before. The customers, indeed, would like pay twice price for the Atlantic Coast oysters when they heard that the better oysters had decreased the price because of the improvement of catching machine or some other reasons, even though they were still twice than another kind of distasteful oysters.

In addition, it is not representational of consumers in California. People in some other places might always like the Gulf Coast oysters, even harmful bacteria were found in a few raw ones. After all, there were just a few parts of the oysters. People can still eat them with checking and abandoning the harmful ones. Otherwise, the raw oysters which contain harmful bacteria could have been safe after boiled and cooked. Thus, the sale of these kinds of oysters would be still as good as before in the other places. If increasing the value now, the producers might lose these customers and the last profits.

Finally, there is no evidence that it is effect that the process which is devised by scientists for killing the bacteria. If it does not work in practice, even if it is functional in labs, none would be made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. There is another possibility that it takes too much time and money that the producers treat the harmful oysters with the process devised by scientist recently of killing the bacteria, although the method is effective enough to make consumers feel safe. Then, the cost might be much higher than before. The producers might still lose money even if they increase the value as much as the Atlantic Coast oysters.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To mark it more convincing, the arguer should provide more detailed information about the different kinds oysters and how about the process for killing the bacteria.