argument117 V-march作业

woodygtUID: 2136751

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 170 - 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.

1. Maybe people do like the taste of nAC oysters.
2. the process may break the taste of the oysters.
3. as gulf Coast oyster used to be cheap, people may not want to pay more money on it.

WORDS：467          TIME：0:57:04          DATE：2006-2-8

The argument asserts that consumers in California are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters after they notice the Gulf Coast ones are safe, and so will raise the profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. To support this conclusion, the author lists evidences that people have been willing to pay for the Gulf Coast oysters in the past five years, and the new process for killing bacteria devised by scientists. But due to several crucial flaws in the argument, the conclusion is not convincing.

The author assumes that consumers in California like to pay for the oysters with high price is because of the harmful bacteria found in the raw Gulf Coast oysters. But maybe people choose the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters not only because the health reason but also because the oysters are more delicious than the Gulf Coast ones. Maybe the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters are brought in just after the time when the harmful bacteria have been found, and they may sales good even without the bacteria thing. Or northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters were just took as an alternative at first, but consumers may do enjoy them more after they have tried.

The other flaw of the argument is that the author does not give enough information about the new process for killing bacteria. On the one hand, as it is known to all, method to kill bacteria always do harm to the materials being treated in some levels. Maybe this process changed the original taste of the oysters which is the most important part to the consumers. On the other hand, whether this method can kill all the harmful bacteria in the oysters is still need to be mentioned. People always take more care of the things that have had problems, so people may prefer to the safer one if the new method is not reliable,

Furthermore, as the Gulf Coast oysters used to be cheap, to sell them in a price as much as northeastern Atlantic Coast ones may make the consumers unsatisfied. As the Gulf Coast oysters have no advantages compare to the northeastern Atlantic Coast ones, and people are used to eating the latter one, they may not want to have a change. And so, there will be no profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers, either.

To sum up, the author fails to convince me because of unsuitable assumptions and being lack of detailed information. To bolster the conclusion, the author should cite more information about the real reason of the northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster trend and the reliability of the new process for killing the bacteria. And also, more survey results need to be cited to show whether the people in California want to change back to the safe Gulf Coast oysters.

[ 本帖最后由 woodygt 于 2006-2-8 23:54 编辑 ]

savagettUID: 2134686

The argument asserts that consumers in California are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters after they notice the Gulf Coast ones are safe, and so will raise the profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. To support this conclusion, the author lists evidences that people have been willing to pay for the Gulf Coast oysters in the past five years(我觉得这个像是前提还不是作者的论据啊), and the new process for killing bacteria devised by scientists. But due to several crucial flaws in the argument, the conclusion is not convincing.

The author assumes that consumers in California like to pay for the oysters with high price is because of the harmful bacteria found in the raw Gulf Coast oysters. But maybe people choose the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters not only because the health reason but also because the oysters are more delicious than the Gulf Coast ones. Maybe the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters are brought in just after the time when the harmful bacteria have been found, and they may sales good even without the bacteria thing. Or northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters werejust took as an alternative at first, but consumers may do enjoy them more after they have tried.

The other flaw of the argument is that the author does not give enough information about the new process for killing bacteria. On the one hand, as it is known to all, method to kill bacteria always do harm to the materials being treated (我觉得有点多余这两个词)in some levels. Maybe this process changed(will change) the original taste of the oysters which is(means) the most important (part) to the consumers. On the other hand, whether this method can kill all the harmful bacteria in the oysters is still need to be mentioned. People always take more care of the things that have had problems, so people may prefer to the safer one if the new method is not reliable,

Furthermore, as the Gulf Coast oysters used to be cheap, to sell them in a price as much as northeastern Atlantic Coast ones may make the consumers unsatisfied. As the Gulf Coast oysters have no advantages compare(compared) to the northeastern Atlantic Coast ones, and people are used to eating the latter one, they may not want to have a change. And so, there will be no profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers, either.
这个理由找的真好,我卡了很久没想到

To sum up, the author fails to convince me because of unsuitable assumptions and being lack of detailed information. To bolster the conclusion, the author should cite more information about the real reason of the northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster trend and the reliability of the new process for killing the bacteria. And also, more survey results need to be cited to show whether the people in California want to change back to the safe Gulf Coast oysters.

基本上没问题,逻辑错误找的很准,说的也很清楚的.只要在语气上再强势一点,用些语气稍微强烈的词义愤填膺的指出错误,就更好了
改的不对的地方,请指出,谢谢.

爱格UID: 2103778

The argument asserts that consumers in California are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters after they notice the Gulf Coast ones are safe, 是否可以改成the Gulf Coast products regain their safety. and so will raise the profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. To support this conclusion, the author lists evidences that people have been willing to pay for the Gulf Coast oysters in the past five years,作者没说消费者在过去的五年里愿意买GC的牡蛎啊! and the new process for killing bacteria devised by scientists. But due to several crucial flaws in the argument, the conclusion is not convincing.

The author assumes that consumers in California like to pay for the oysters with high price is because of the harmful bacteria found in the raw Gulf Coast oysters. But maybe people choose the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters not only because of the health reason but also because the oysters are more delicious than the Gulf Coast ones. 是否考虑改成GC‘s. Maybe the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters are brought in just after the time when the harmful bacteria have been found, and they may sales good may sell good even without the bacteria thing. Or northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters were just took as an alternative at first, but consumers may do enjoy them more after they have tried.很好的论据

The other flaw of the argument is that the author does not give enough information about the new process for killing bacteria. On the one hand, as it is known to all, methods to kill bacteria always do harm to the materials being treated in some levels. Maybe this process changed the original taste of the oysters which is the most important part to the consumers. 改成which is the most important reason for people’s consumption. On the other hand, whether this method can kill all the harmful bacteria in the oysters is still need to be mentioned. People always take more care of the things that have had problems, so people和前面的people充分，换成they  may prefer to the safer one if the new method is not reliable,一朝被蛇咬，十年怕井绳的论据好得很！
Furthermore, as the Gulf Coast oysters used to be cheap, to sell them in a price as much as northeastern Atlantic Coast ones may make这个字我们能不用就不用了吧～换成高级一点的～ the consumers unsatisfied. As the Gulf Coast oysters have no advantages compare to the northeastern Atlantic Coast ones, and people are used to eating the latter one, they may not want to have a change. And so, there will be no profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers, either.恰当而且合情理
To sum up, the author fails to convince me because of unsuitable assumptions and being lack of detailed information. To bolster the conclusion, the author should cite more information about the real reason of 改成for the northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster trend and the reliability of the new process for killing the bacteria. And also, more survey results need to be cited to show whether the people in California want to change back to the safe Gulf Coast oysters.
写的观点鲜明论据充足！每个论据都很有力站得住脚。我觉得已经是一篇标准的argument啦！有一些小毛病我已经批注了，可以改进的地方我认为在于语言 的锤炼，当然这需要功夫。
改的不对的地方请指出。

woodygtUID: 2136751

谢谢两位,咱们组现在还active的好像不多了:)
这个语言的毛病我也觉得是非常棘手的问题,现在已经无奈到开始背新概念了,希望能有点长进吧...