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.

嘉文博譯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)

參考譯文

在過去的五年里，加州的消費者寧肯付出墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣一倍的價錢去購買大西洋北海岸的牡蠣。在發(fā)現(xiàn)墨西哥灣沿岸幾例生牡蠣具有有害細(xì)菌后不久，就開始了這種傾向。但是，科學(xué)家現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)發(fā)明了殺死這種細(xì)菌的方法。一旦使消費者明白墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣已增強的安全性，他們可能會愿意付出與大西洋北海岸牡蠣相同的價格購買墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣，隨之而來的就是墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣生產(chǎn)者更大的利潤。

在這一個論證中，論證者聲稱加州的消費者寧肯付出墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣兩倍的價錢去購買大西洋北岸的牡蠣，而且這一傾向開始于發(fā)現(xiàn)墨西哥灣沿岸幾例生牡蠣含有有害細(xì)菌后不久。論證者繼而說道，現(xiàn)在已有了殺死這種細(xì)菌的方法，而且由于墨西哥灣已增強的安全性，消費者將會愿意付出同樣的價錢購買墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣和大西洋沿岸牡蠣，從而墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣生產(chǎn)者將獲得更大的利潤。初看起來，論點似乎合情合理。但是，仔細(xì)分析就會表明，它的邏輯基礎(chǔ)是不正確的，而且它是不能令人信服的。

論證的第一個問題在于它假定發(fā)現(xiàn)墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣含有有害細(xì)菌與加州消費者愿付一倍的價錢去購買大西洋北海岸牡蠣這一傾向之間的直接的那一因果關(guān)系。但是論證中卻沒有揭示這類的因果關(guān)系。首先，發(fā)現(xiàn)細(xì)菌和加州的那一傾向在同時發(fā)生，很可能純粹是巧合。其次，很可能大西洋海岸的牡蠣比墨西哥灣海岸的牡蠣個兒更大，味兒更鮮。再其次，吃大西洋北海岸的牡蠣而非墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣，很可能表明一種身份感。加州人是趕潮流聞名的，所以且不說質(zhì)量如何，他們可能覺著吃大西洋海岸的牡蠣是一種時尚，而吃墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣卻不時尚。論證因沒有說明這些可能造成加州人樂意為吃牡蠣而付出的價格差異的原因而極大地削弱了說服力。

一旦把發(fā)現(xiàn)細(xì)菌看作價格差別的原因這種觀點受到質(zhì)疑，論證的其余部分就同樣地成了問題。論證者假定，一旦消費者清楚了墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣已增強了的安全性，他們將會愿意付出與購買大西洋北海岸牡蠣同樣的價錢去購買墨西哥灣海岸的牡蠣。首先，消費者可能根本就沒有關(guān)心過牡蠣的安全性，因此，他們不太可能改變他們對想買的任何牡蠣所付的價錢的看法。

再者，論證者假定，隨著使用新的滅菌方法，至少在消費者清楚了墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣的安全性之后，墨西哥灣海岸牡蠣的生產(chǎn)者將獲得更大的利潤。事實上，并非會自動地給墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣生產(chǎn)者帶來更大的利潤。首先，滅菌方法可能更昂貴，從而增加了生產(chǎn)牡蠣的成本。除非他們能夠用新方法提高價格或者在一定程度上減少成本，否則就不可能會相應(yīng)地提高利潤。再者，論證聲稱，只有加州的消費者，并非普通消費者愿意付出一倍的價錢購買大西洋北海岸的牡蠣。可能在其他地方人人都已經(jīng)付同樣的價錢購買這兩種牡蠣，甚至為墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣付更高的價錢。因而，引進(jìn)新的滅菌方法并不會給墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣生產(chǎn)者帶來多大利潤，甚至根本沒有利潤。

總之，這一論點忽視了幾個與其前提嚴(yán)重相悖的邏輯可能性。除了提到墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣的有害細(xì)菌外，論證者并沒有說明價格差異不同的其它可能原因，而且只憑利潤會隨著牡蠣的安全性的增強而增長這一毫無根據(jù)的假設(shè)，他無法讓讀者信服其結(jié)論的正確性。