Arugment 170 練習

The argument's conclusion is that if Gulf Coast's oyster producers start to use new methods to kill the bacteria, there will be greater profits to Gulf Coast oyster producers. I think it is good to listen the new method for killing bacteria, but the argument still unconvincing. Here is why.
First, the author claims that consumers would like to pay twice as much for oysters form the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters because of the bacteria. Obviously, the author's assumption is that the qualities are the same both on northeastern Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast oysters. Maybe the price of the oysters form the northeastern Atlantic Coast is higher that Gulf Coast in normal. The bacteria only decrease a little price for Gulf Coast's oysters.
Second, even there is a new method for killing harmful bacteria, but does not mention that the consumers would accept the oysters through the process of killing bacteria. If the new method is using X-ray to killing the bacteria, there is no customers will interesting the oysters which are processed.
Third, as the author says, if the Gulf Coast oyster producers using the new method for killing bacteria, they will have great profit. Is it true? As a graduated student with a minor in Economics, I would like to say the answer is no. Actually, if there are more and more oysters in the market, with the same demand, the price will decrease. Further, the consumer would treat the oysters which are processed as lower class products than the oysters from northeastern Atlantic Coast, and ask for lower price to buy the oysters from Gulf Coast oysters.
Last, we should care about that the author only describes the behavior of consumers in California, but his conclusion is for everyone, not just in the California. It will be a big problem if he suggests the Gulf Coast oyster producers to use the new method.