Argument170[Jet]小组第13次作业

zhxj1985UID: 2353169

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: 528          TIME: 00:49:20          DATE: 2008-3-2 13:49:25

The argument concludes that Gulf Coast oyster producers will enjoy increased profits as consumers in California would be likely to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters once they become aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. To justify this claim, the proponent of the argument cites a trend that consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters in the past five years which is almost simultaneous with the bacteria affair. In addition, the arguer notes that scientists have now developed a process for killing the bacteria. However, close scrutiny of the evidence that the author provides reveals how groundless the argument is in the analysis.

First of all, as we all know, reputation of a product is easy to destroy but hard to regain. Consumers might be still afraid of bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters, even though scientists have devised a process for killing the bacteria to increase safety of them. It might take a long time to conciliate the fear of bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters by consumers. On the other hand, the author fails to provide any evidence about the effectiveness of the new developed device for killing the bacteria in these oysters. Does it function well and eventually increase safety of these oysters? Lacking such evidence, the author couldn't convince me that Gulf Coast oysters would be safe enough subjected to such a process and accepted by consumers with a high price shortly.

In addition, the author fails to provide evidence about that the bacteria affair is the cause for the trend that consumers have been likely to willing to pay twice for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast in the past five years. There might be other alternative explanations, such as low quality of Gulf Coast oysters and culinary tasty shift in this region etc. This trend might come up even before the bacteria affair. Without clear evidence about the casual relationship between the trend and the bacteria affair, the conclusion that once consumer become aware of the safety of Gulf Coast oysters they will be willing to pay as much for them based on the relation might be fallacious.

Finally, even if consumers are aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, there is still no evidence that producers would achieve greater profits than before, as profits should include not only revenue but also costs for killing the bacteria which might be a large amount of money. Including such a amount of money, the profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers might not increase or even decrease.

In sum, the conclusion is groundless with the superficial evidence provided by the author. To strength it he/she should provide better evidence to establish the casual relationship between the trend and the bacteria affair. Besides, the arguer should also convince us that consumers would accept Gulf Coast oysters once they become aware of the increased safety. What's more, the proponent of the argument should provide information about the costs for killing the bacteria in order to better estimate the profits that Gulf Coast oyster producers might attain.