argument170 木木互改--ARGUE oyster.请狠批.谢谢

咯噔UID: 2114564

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.
------正文------
Citing a comparison of the consumers between Atlantic Coast (AC) oysters with Gulf Coast(GC) oysters and a new skill to kill bacterial, the author conclude the a profit of AC is assured. Masking other factors influencing profit and people 's choice in merchandise, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands.

First, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the discovery of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters with the increase consume of the AC. The observed phenomenon, in itself, says little more than that the two are successive and that's all. Consider, the increased command for AC's oyster may results from the effect of propaganda of AC's companies. It is also possible that the increased cuisine of AC oyster lead to this increase. Or perhaps people are bored with GC's taste and want to try something new. Since other situations are also possible, I can not accept the author's specious causal relationship.

Second, there is no evidence that killing the bacteria in GC's oyster will lead to increase of consumers. The author fails to consider other ingredients that may play a role in people's choice, such as taste, price, etc. If in the process for killing the bacteria, some other nutrients that consumers stress is also eliminate, consumers may also refuse to bur GC oyster. Or consider, if the oysters are no longer as delicious as before, customers may also hesitate to accept this new kind of oyster. Since all these possibilities are excluded without sake, the evidence is not supportive.

Last, even granted that all the foregoing assumptions are true, the conclusion may also remain misleading. The author fails to consider other factors that may influence a firm's profit. For instance, if the process to kill bacteria also increases the cost of the oyster that the income can not compensate for the increment, the profit will remain the same or even reduce. Or consider that if there are more new companies established in these 5 years to produce oyster. They have better skill to both kill bacterial and vary the taste, people may also choose other brands in stead of AC.

In sum, the argument is well presented but not well reasoned. Before I accept the conclusion, the author needs to provide evidence (1)the increased consumers is due to the bacterial in AC oyster, (2)the skill has no other harmful effects, and(3)the market condition is beneficial.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-29 at 16:37 ]

linuariesUID: 2117373

------正文------
Citing a comparison of the consumers between Atlantic Coast (AC) oysters with Gulf Coast(GC) oysters and a new skill to kill bacterial, the author concludes that a profit of AC is assured. Masking other factors influencing profit and people 's choice in merchandise, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands.

First, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the discovery of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters with the increased consume of the AC. The observed phenomenon, in itself, says little more than that the two are successive and that's all. Consider, (句式有点奇怪) the increased consume for AC's oyster may result from the effect of propaganda of AC's companies. It is also possible that the /increased/ superior cuisine of AC oyster lead to this increase. Or perhaps people are bored with GC's taste and want to try something new. Since other situations are also possible, I can not accept the author's specious causal relationship (relationship应该是authot推出来的，而不是author本身有的，觉得还是用conclusion/claim之类的比较好).

Second, there is no evidence that killing the bacteria in GC's oyster will lead to increase of consumers. The author fails to consider other ingredients that may /play a role in/ effect on people's choice, such as taste, price, etc. If in the process for killing the bacteria, some other nutrients that consumers stress is also eliminated, consumers may also refuse to bur GC oyster. Or consider, if the oysters are no longer as delicious as before, customers may also hesitate to accept this new kind of oyster. Since all these possibilities are excluded without sake, the evidence is not supportive.

Last, even granted that all the foregoing assumptions are true, the conclusion may also remain misleading. The author fails to consider other factors that may influence a firm's profit. For instance, if the process to kill bacteria also increases the cost of the oyster that the income can not compensate for the increment, the profit will remain the same or even /reduce/ less. Or consider that if there are more new companies established in these 5 years to produce oyster. They have better skill to both kill bacterial and vary the taste, people may also choose other brands in stead of AC.

In sum, the argument is well presented but not well reasoned. Before I accept the conclusion, the author needs to provide evidence (1)the increased consumers is due to the bacterial in AC oyster, (2)the skill has no other (现在好像没有危害，other意味着原来就有危害) harmful effects, and(3)the market condition is beneficial.


Comments:  语法错误少，思路清晰，总体上来看写得不错，继续努力。
Suggestion: 关于profit方面的论述可以针对性训练，写成自己的模板，就万事OK乐:lol