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(guò)去的五年里，加州的消費(fèi)者寧肯付出墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣一倍的價(jià)錢去購(gòu)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(fèi)者明白墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣已增強(qiáng)的安全性，他們可能會(huì)愿意付出與大西洋北海岸牡蠣相同的價(jià)格購(gòu)買墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣，隨之而來(lái)的就是墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣生產(chǎn)者更大的利潤(rùn)。

在這一個(gè)論證中，論證者聲稱加州的消費(fèi)者寧肯付出墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣兩倍的價(jià)錢去購(gòu)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(shuō)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(qiáng)的安全性，消費(fèi)者將會(huì)愿意付出同樣的價(jià)錢購(gòu)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(rùn)。初看起來(lái)，論點(diǎn)似乎合情合理。但是，仔細(xì)分析就會(huì)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(gè)問(wèn)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(fèi)者愿付一倍的價(jià)錢去購(gòu)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(méi)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(shí)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(gè)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(shuō)質(zhì)量如何，他們可能覺著吃大西洋海岸的牡蠣是一種時(shí)尚，而吃墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣卻不時(shí)尚。論證因沒(méi)有說(shuō)明這些可能造成加州人樂(lè)意為吃牡蠣而付出的價(jià)格差異的原因而極大地削弱了說(shuō)服力。

一旦把發(fā)現(xiàn)細(xì)菌看作價(jià)格差別的原因這種觀點(diǎn)受到質(zhì)疑，論證的其余部分就同樣地成了問(wèn)題。論證者假定，一旦消費(fèi)者清楚了墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣已增強(qiáng)了的安全性，他們將會(huì)愿意付出與購(gòu)買大西洋北海岸牡蠣同樣的價(jià)錢去購(gòu)買墨西哥灣海岸的牡蠣。首先，消費(fèi)者可能根本就沒(méi)有關(guān)心過(guò)牡蠣的安全性，因此，他們不太可能改變他們對(duì)想買的任何牡蠣所付的價(jià)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(fèi)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(rùn)。事實(shí)上，并非會(huì)自動(dòng)地給墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣生產(chǎn)者帶來(lái)更大的利潤(rùn)。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(jià)格或者在一定程度上減少成本，否則就不可能會(huì)相應(yīng)地提高利潤(rùn)。再者，論證聲稱，只有加州的消費(fèi)者，并非普通消費(fèi)者愿意付出一倍的價(jià)錢購(gòu)買大西洋北海岸的牡蠣?？赡茉谄渌胤饺巳硕家呀?jīng)付同樣的價(jià)錢購(gòu)買這兩種牡蠣，甚至為墨西哥灣沿岸的牡蠣付更高的價(jià)錢。因而，引進(jìn)新的滅菌方法并不會(huì)給墨西哥灣沿岸牡蠣生產(chǎn)者帶來(lái)多大利潤(rùn)，甚至根本沒(méi)有利潤(rùn)。

總之，這一論點(diǎn)忽視了幾個(gè)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(méi)有說(shuō)明價(jià)格差異不同的其它可能原因，而且只憑利潤(rùn)會(huì)隨著牡蠣的安全性的增強(qiáng)而增長(zhǎng)這一毫無(wú)根據(jù)的假設(shè)，他無(wú)法讓讀者信服其結(jié)論的正確性。