Argument Analysis 10

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.

My response:

The argument concludes that consumers in California would be willing to pay the same price for Gulf Coast oysters as they do for Atlantic Coast oysters if consumers were made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. The author states a history of consumers in California paying twice the price for Atlantic Coast oysters as for Gulf Coast oysters for the last five years, and that this trend was a result of harmful bacteria found in few raw Gulf Coast oysters. The author supports his argument by claiming that scientists have devised a process that would kill the bacteria. However, the argument presented by the author is weak and flawed as the evidences given were fragmentary.

First, the author clearly assumed that the trend in differences of prices between the two coast oysters were the result of the harmful bacteria found in the Gulf Coast oysters. However, the author did not produce enough compelling evidences to come to this conclusion. The trend in the differences of prices could be due to a number of other reasons including the consumer's taste preferences, or it could be due to binding contracts between Atlantic Coast oyster companies and Californian oyster importers and so on.

Even if the trend in prices was due to the discovery of harmful bacteria found in the Gulf Coast oysters, it cannot be assumed that consumer's perceptions would be changed if they were aware of existence of the bacteria killing process devised by scientists. The author failed to include testimonials from consumers indicating their views and opinions on said issue. The author should take into consideration of the fact that the reputation of the Gulf Coast oysters might already be too damaged to be repaired. Also, the argument did not propose other methods or solutions that can be used as an alternative, implying that this was the only solution to the whole issue.

Lastly, the author failed to mention more important details of the bacteria killing process devised by scientists, potentially misleading readers. The author did not mention if the process was successful, nor did he mention what stages the process was currently in( if it was under testing stages or if it was being used currently). Therefore we are unable to come to the conclusion on the overall issue based on this evidence.

In sum, the argument presented by the author is insufficiently cogent. The evidences presented by author is clearly based on a number of assumptions that are weak and flawed. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable.