ARGUMENT170【0906G背水一战三月小组】第11次作业 By fireofnight

fireofnightUID??2447280

The author of this argument points out that the scientists have devised a process to increase the safety of GC oyster. Base on this line of reasoning, the auger asserts that people will be likely to pay for GC oyster as much as for AC oyster, which leads to great profits for GC oyster producers. By deeply investigating the argument, it contains several logical flaws, which render it to be unconvincing.

A threshold problem with the argument involves pointing out that the price of AC oyster being twice higher than GC oyster is due to the discovery of the harmful bacteria in GC, which is unsubstantiated. The author fails to provide sufficient evidence to illustrate harmful bacteria is the major reason for people quitting GC oyster. It is entirely possible that people do not like GC oyster any more is because GC oyster is becoming smaller in size or less tasty. Or even, the AC oyster producer is putting much more efforts on advertising their oysters.

Furthermore, giving that scientists have devised a process for killing the bacteria would totally solve the safety problem is unjustifiable. Lacking more details on the new process, we have every reason to believe that the process would not be efficient enough to kill all of the harmful bacteria, or even, by killing all of the bacteria, will be too aggressive to do so? Since this might do some negative effect on the food chain in that marine area causing more problems.

Finally, the author fails to convince me that making consumers aware of the increased safety would help with sales of the GC oyster.  The arguer overlooks a myriad of other possibilities. It is entirely possible that customers are not so easily to be convinced on the food safety issue. On the other hand, bring in the competition with AC oyster, there is no obvious evidences showing GC oyster will be the favor choice for people once the safety problem is being obviated. Without more details on these concerns, the assertion of the author becomes unsubstantiated.

In sum, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, we would need more information on why people currently prefer paying more for AC oysters. We also need more details on the process devised by the scientists to make sure no other negative by-products would be introduced to the environment as well as some strategy making people to buy GC oysters once the safety problem has been solved.