argument170 jingjing(kito)开头和结尾还是老样子，中间内容的潜词造句变化了

jingjingtousUID：2164820

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.
Outline:
1 the discovery of harmful bacteria in Gulf oyster is not responsible for it lower price
2 there is no evidence that customers are willing to pay as much for Gulf oysters as Atlantic oysters when they notice the increased safety of them
3 profit. The arguer cannot arbitrarily predict that Gulf oysters' producers would surely gain greater profits in the foreseeable future.
部分参考《北美GRE范文精讲》
In this argument, the arguer concludes that by installing the bacteria-killing process the security of Gulf oyster will increase and consumers are likely to pay the same amount of money for Gulf oysters as Atlantic oysters. And the arguer further predict that, for the aware of the increased safety of Gulf oyster, the producers will obtain greater profits in the futher. At first glance, the argument seems sound, but after close scrutiny I find it suffers severe criticism as fellows.

To begin with, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between the discovery of bacteria in Gulf oyster and the comparatively lower price of them that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. It is highly possible that the quality of Atlantic oyster including the taste, size, level of nutrition and so forth, significantly surpass that of Gulf oyster. For that matter, perhaps the inconvenient transportation of Atlantic oyster was equally responsible for its higher price. Moreover, the arguer has not accounted for the possibility that there is a unique and beneficial component for human health in Atlantic oyster, and for that, customers shifted their inclinations from Gulf oyster to Atlantic oyster. If this is the case, then the arguer's conclusion would lack any merit whatsoever.

Second, the arguer assumes too hastily that if the consumers have noticed the increased safety of Gulf oysters they would certainly be willing to pay as much for them as Atlantic oysters. However, this is not necessarily so. The feasibility of the practicality of the anti-bacteria process is open to doubt. It appears that the Gulf producers are reluctant to complicate the process of production by applying the device. Besides, perhaps the safety process damaged the essential nutrition contained in Gulf oysters while killing the harmful bacteria. Therefore, consumers might not pay a premium for the lower nutritional Gulf oysters. Moreover, consider the habits of oysters' consumers, perhaps it is the five years-a long time that they entrenched their tastes for Atlantic oysters, which cannot be swiched to Gulf oysters in short term. Thus, without accounting for these scenarios, the arguer could not draw any firm conclusions based on this dubious assumption.

Third, even if the customers are willing to pay as much for Gulf oysters as Atlantic oysters, the arguer's prediction that Gulf oysters' producers will obtain greater profits is still unwarranted. We all know that profit is a factor of not only  cost but also revenue. Even assuming that the safety process of Gulf oysters would bring more revenues to their producers, however, the increase of producing cost which resulted from the expense on the anti-bacteria process might, to certain degrees, offset the additional income. Further, perhaps their competitors-other oyster manufacturers will decrease their oysters' price for augmenting the market of their products. Thus, Gulf oyster producers would earn minor profits at best, or even none after the adjustment for the inflation.

In sum, the arguer fails to provide key evidence needed to support the assertions. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide stronger evidence that it is the discovery of harmful bacteria that caused the decrease of Gulf oyster's price, and that customers are willing to pay the same bills for Gulf oysters when their producers apply the anti-bacteria process to the production. To better evaluate this argument I would also need to know that the safety process ensures Gulf oyster producers' greater profits in the foreseeable future, as the arguer predicts.

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on  at 2006-1-1 18:55 ]

OceanDUID：2118730

In this argument, the arguer concludes that by installing the bacteria-killing process the security of Gulf oyster will increase and consumers are likely to pay the same amount of money for Gulf oysters as Atlantic oysters. And the arguer further predicts that, for the aware of the increased safety of Gulf oyster, the producers will obtain greater profits in the futher ?future. At first glance, the argument seems sound, but after close scrutiny I find it suffers severe criticism as fellows.我认为这段的逻辑有点问题。题目中说，Once consumers are made aware of …导致了1. be willing to pay as much for… as… and 2. will gain greater profits.而你的逻辑是，只要应用杀菌手段，人们就会多付钱，进一步，人们如果意识到安全，利润就会增加，不觉得怪吗？ 最好不要硬套further predict的模版。

先说开头，建议你去论坛精华版找蒙蒙讲argument的两篇文章，很经典。开头要尽量简洁。我改一下你开头的主要句子，供参考，the arguer concludes that consumers would enjoy paying as much for Gulf oysters as for Atlantic oysters if only realized the increased security of Gulf oysters. The arguer further predicts that the application of bacteria-killing will certainly bring the producers greater profits as well.这样一改字数会少，可能是大家不愿意的，但是我认为改后意思更清楚了，其实文章内容比字数重要，如果你看过6分作文，就会发现，他的字数多是由丰富的内容撑起来的，而不是一个信息点反复说或者用很长的模版撑起来，所以不用担心。

To begin with, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between the discovery of bacteria in Gulf oyster and the comparatively lower price of them that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. 这句话我不太明白，语法有错误吧？中心句是concludes that the former …to the latter?Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. 这句话我不懂，可能是我水平问题，是抄的模版吗？It is highly possible that the quality of Atlantic oyster including the taste, size, level of nutrition and so forth, significantly surpass that指什么？价钱吗？ of Gulf oyster. For that matter, perhaps the inconvenient transportation of Atlantic oyster was equally responsible for its higher price.这点有点逻辑问题，你批驳的中心是人们乐意买高价Atlantic oyster的其它原因，对吧？而这句却说的是价钱高的原因，要强调的是人们选择高价的原因。你写的是价高是因为不方便的运输，但是为什么这样人们还要选呢？可以改成gulf oyster运输不便利，所以运来的都不太新鲜了。（个人意见，供你参考啊）下面这点就想得很好 Moreover, the arguer has not accounted for the possibility that there is a unique and beneficial component for human health in Atlantic oyster, and for that, customers shifted their inclinations from Gulf oyster to Atlantic oyster. If this is the case, then the arguer's conclusion would lack any merit whatsoever.这点想得不错。因为Atlantic oyster有营养，即使价高也选。

这一段开头我没懂，我觉得你的意思是某correlation单讲是有道理的，放到此处还有其他因素决定，是吗？argument一定要句句狠批，不要有转折，例如，某某有一定道理，但是。。虽然有这种写法的例文，但是还是要尽量避免。另外就是开头的句子很别扭，作为一段的中心句还是要追求明了。不要刻意使用长句。

有个问题：我觉得有几处你没批出来。比如，This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters.这句话。Atlantic oyster里面有没有病毒啊？还有，raw gulf oyster里面有，那么煮熟的还有吗？这样在接你后面的，即使只有gulf oyster有病毒，而且熟了也有，还有其它原因。不过可能想太细了，你思考

Second, the arguer assumes too hastily that if the consumers have noticed the increased safety of Gulf oysters they would certainly be willing to pay as much for them as Atlantic oysters. However, this is not necessarily so. The feasibility of the practicality offeasibility和 practicality用一个就行了吧 the anti-bacteria process is open to doubt. It appears that the Gulf producers are reluctant to complicate the process of production by applying the device. Besides, perhaps the safety process damaged the essential nutrition contained in Gulf oysters while killing the harmful bacteria. Therefore, consumers might not pay a premium for the lower nutritional Gulf oysters. Moreover, consider the habits of oysters' consumers, perhaps it is the five years-a long time that they entrenched their tastes for Atlantic oysters, which cannot be swiched switched to Gulf oysters in short term. 这点想得不错Thus, without accounting for these scenarios, the arguer could not draw any firm conclusions based on this dubious assumption.

这段的逻辑线条不是特别清楚，其实你想表达的是 1. 杀菌过程是否能用。2.即使用上了，有没有副作用。3.即使没有副作用，人们会选择吗？但是感觉没有力度，比如第三点，你并没有点出来这句话，但我明白你的意思，如果你先点出来，然后后面这些作为例子来支持就好很多。另外你还可以加一点，4即使人们愿意选择gulf牡蛎了，是不是愿意花一样的价钱呢？这样和你下一段的开头呼应上了。即使愿意出一样价钱，。。。。

Third, even if the customers are willing to pay as much for Gulf oysters as Atlantic oysters, the arguer's prediction that Gulf oysters' producers will obtain greater profits is still unwarranted. We all know that profit is a factor of not only  cost but also revenue. Even assuming that the safety process of Gulf oysters would bring more revenues to their producers, 有more后面要有比较对象，或代词代替比较对象，句子我明白，因为我是中国人 however, the increase of producing cost which resulted from the expense on the anti-bacteria process might, to certain degrees, offset the additional income. however, the rise in producing cost of anti-bacteria process will offset the additional income in a great degree.Further, perhaps their competitors-other oyster manufacturers will decrease their oysters' price for augmenting the market of their products. 还是上一段的那个问题，没有点出来要说的小中心句，突然出来具体这么一段，没有力度Thus, Gulf oyster producers would earn minor profits at best, or even none after the adjustment for the inflation.

这段逻辑还是有点乱。你分2部分1.即使收入大，成本也增加了。2.其它竞争者的影响，会导致收入不一定增大。你看，是不是把这两点的顺序换一下，更有力度呢？

In sum, the arguer fails to provide key evidence neededneeded 能这样用吗？直接用the necessary evidence不就结了 to support the assertions. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide stronger evidence that it is the discovery of harmful bacteria that caused the decrease of Gulf oyster's price, and that customers are willing to pay the same bills for Gulf oysters when their producers apply the anti-bacteria process to the production. To better evaluate this argument I would also need to know that the safety process ensures Gulf oyster producers' greater profits in the foreseeable future, as the arguer predicts.

OceanD小结：
可能批得重了点，确实无意冒犯，而且我改了将近三个小时哩，所以，没功劳有苦劳，多多包涵，有则改之，无则加勉嘛。
OK,总结如下
1.语法角度：小错误基本没有，不错不错。不过，有些从句好像有点问题。
2.逻辑角度：不错。虽然我改得比较多，而且总说你逻辑乱，但是我是想了半天的，而且是让你的逻辑更好，并不是说你得不好，如果我在规定时间写，可能也想不了这么彻底。另外一点很重要的，就是你的逻辑乱很大程度上是由你的句式导致的。
3.句式角度：长句子、从句都很丰富。但还可以多用用被动啊，独立主格开头啊，it is 开头啊（虽然后面用了一句，但可以多多用。）不过，我觉得你是刻意在造长句子，所以读起来有点别扭，要注意。
4.词语角度：这点给我留下了比较深的印象，我觉得你的词汇很丰富，可以好好利用。
5.内容角度：我前面讲了，高分文章虽然字数多，但是是用内容堆出来的，我觉得你包括的内容还是有点少，虽然字数多，是冗长的句子撑起来的，建议改进。

还是那句话，无意冒犯。我想说，每个人的思维都不一样，我也不是权威，以上内容包括给你修改的句子都是向你表述我的看法和我的建议，仅供参考。

jingjingtousUID：2164820

非常非常感谢你的点评，非常欣赏你从论证的角度，逻辑思维和句式变化上启发我而不是简单的纠正几个语法错误，你的评论很彻底，让我再次汗了一把，以前我总以为自己花一个多钟头帮别人改篇文章太辛苦了，没想到你居然用了三个钟头。。。。汗！
再次感谢你的点评，大家一起努力！！