GRE作文范文 Argument-17

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.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as for Gulf Coast oysters, and that the trend began shortly after harmful bacteria had been found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. The arguer further states that there is now a process for killing the bacteria and that due to the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, consumers will be willing to pay the same for Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast oysters, and there will therefore be greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. At first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic and it ultimately remains unconvincing.

The first problem with the argument is that it assumes a direct cause and effect relationship between the discovery of the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters and the trend of California consumers paying twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast. There is no such causal relationship demonstrated in this argument. First of all, it could be purely coincidental that the bacteria discovery and the California trend began around the same time. Secondly, it is possible that oysters from the Atlantic Coast are larger or perhaps have a better taste than those from the Gulf Coast. Consumers would therefore be likely to pay more for oysters that were bigger or tasted better. Additionally, there may be a perception of status by eating oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as opposed to the Gulf Coast. Californians are notoriously trendy, and regardless of the quality, they may perceive that eating Atlantic Coast oysters is fashionable whereas eating Gulf Coast oysters is not. The argument is critically weakened by failing to address these additional possible causes for the differences in prices that Californians are willing to pay for oysters.

Once the idea of the finding of the bacteria as the cause of the price difference is called into question, the rest of the argument becomes equally problematic. The arguer assumes that once consumers become aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as for northeastern Atlantic coast oysters. For one thing, consumers may not have been concerned about the safety of the oysters in the first place, thus it is unlikely that they will change their minds about the prices that they are willing to pay for any oysters.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that greater profits will follow for Gulf Coast oyster producers with the introduction of the new bacteria killing process, at least after consumers have been made aware of the safety of Gulf Coast oysters. It does not follow that there will automatically be greater profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. First of all, the bacteria killing process may be more expensive, thus adding to the costs producing oysters. Unless they are able to increase prices with the new process or somehow reduce other costs, it is unlikely that there would be a corresponding rise in profits. Furthermore, the argument states that only California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic oysters, not consumers in general. It is possible that everywhere else, everyone already pays about the same for both types of oysters, or perhaps even more for Gulf Coast oysters. There would therefore be little or no net gain in profits by introducing the bacteria killing process for Gulf Coast oyster producers.

In summary, this argument ignores several logical possibilities that severely undermine its premise. Without addressing the different possible reasons for the pricing difference other than the finding of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters, and by the baseless assumption that profits would increase with the increased safety of those oysters, the arguer fails to convince the reader about the accuracy of his conclusion.

(657 words)

参考译文

在过去的五年里，加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。在发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎具有有害细菌后不久，就开始了这种倾向。但是，科学家现在已经发明了杀死这种细菌的方法。一旦使消费者明白墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强的安全性，他们可能会愿意付出与大西洋北海岸牡蛎相同的价格购买墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎，随之而来的就是墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎生产者更大的利润。

在这一个论证中，论证者声称加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎两倍的价钱去购买大西洋北岸的牡蛎，而且这一倾向开始于发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎含有有害细菌后不久。论证者继而说道，现在已有了杀死这种细菌的方法，而且由于墨西哥湾已增强的安全性，消费者将会愿意付出同样的价钱购买墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎和大西洋沿岸牡蛎，从而墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者将获得更大的利润。初看起来，论点似乎合情合理。但是，仔细分析就会表明，它的逻辑基础是不正确的，而且它是不能令人信服的。

论证的第一个问题在于它假定发现墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎含有有害细菌与加州消费者愿付一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎这一倾向之间的直接的那一因果关系。但是论证中却没有揭示这类的因果关系。首先，发现细菌和加州的那一倾向在同时发生，很可能纯粹是巧合。其次，很可能大西洋海岸的牡蛎比墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎个儿更大，味儿更鲜。再其次，吃大西洋北海岸的牡蛎而非墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎，很可能表明一种身份感。加州人是赶潮流闻名的，所以且不说质量如何，他们可能觉着吃大西洋海岸的牡蛎是一种时尚，而吃墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎却不时尚。论证因没有说明这些可能造成加州人乐意为吃牡蛎而付出的价格差异的原因而极大地削弱了说服力。

一旦把发现细菌看作价格差别的原因这种观点受到质疑，论证的其余部分就同样地成了问题。论证者假定，一旦消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强了的安全性，他们将会愿意付出与购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎同样的价钱去购买墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎。首先，消费者可能根本就没有关心过牡蛎的安全性，因此，他们不太可能改变他们对想买的任何牡蛎所付的价钱的看法。

再者，论证者假定，随着使用新的灭菌方法，至少在消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的安全性之后，墨西哥湾海岸牡蛎的生产者将获得更大的利润。事实上，并非会自动地给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来更大的利润。首先，灭菌方法可能更昂贵，从而增加了生产牡蛎的成本。除非他们能够用新方法提高价格或者在一定程度上减少成本，否则就不可能会相应地提高利润。再者，论证声称，只有加州的消费者，并非普通消费者愿意付出一倍的价钱购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。可能在其他地方人人都已经付同样的价钱购买这两种牡蛎，甚至为墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎付更高的价钱。因而，引进新的灭菌方法并不会给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来多大利润，甚至根本没有利润。

总之，这一论点忽视了几个与其前提严重相悖的逻辑可能性。除了提到墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的有害细菌外，论证者并没有说明价格差异不同的其它可能原因，而且只凭利润会随着牡蛎的安全性的增强而增长这一毫无根据的假设，他无法让读者信服其结论的正确性。