- UID
- 547488
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-7-18
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In the argument, the author tyies to laud the feasibility and the protential of making money of the new Captain Seafood restaurant, which specializes in seafood as a precursor in Bay City. Although the arguer draws a lot of evidence to support his notion, the conclusion, to be frank, is not worthy of being believed due to a lot of logical problems.
The arguer assumes that people in Bay City tend to be enamoured with seafood by saying that a 30-percent increase in consumption of seafood dishes has taken place in Bay City restaurants during the past five years. But I do not see a clear point here when he says an increase in five years, since there are so many ways to read that sign. For example, it is not hard to imagine that there may be a tremendous rise in the first two years, with comsuption on feafood reaching to , say,70 percent. However, the market share of seafood purchase keeps going down in the later three of the five years, going back to the level which is still 30 percent more than the original number. We find it no hard to come to the conclusion this way that after a sudden boost, people in Bay City quickly feel bored with eating seafood and become less and less enthusiastic about seafood. If what I speculate is true, the newly built Captain Seafood restaurant may trun out to be a failure, as opposed to what is assumed by the arguer.
Then, the reliability of the national survey is not that clear to me. We have enough reasons to cast doubt on this so-called national study by asking what organization conducts it and in what way the research in implemented. What if this organization is not a trust-worthy one? How many methods are used by these researchers and what are they? Are these results proved to be effective and accurate? These are all remainning to be answered further. Even though this study is making some sense, we cannot safely apply it directly to the circumstance here in Bay City. Perhaps the people in Bay City live under the average property level so that even the two-income families there still find it difficult to afford to eat outside or have seafood that frequently. More facts and informaion is demanded to get a reasonable conclusion. In short, this nationwide study has to be analyzed in a much more precise and appropriate way than now.
According to the author, seafood is axiomatically regarded as a healthy food, which puzzles me a lot. The arguer mentions that people are inclined to concern more about healthful eating and then comes to a conclusion that the Captain Seafood restaurant with a specaility in seafood shoule be succeful. However, all seafood is not healthy food. Nowadays some seafood poison incidents happening quite frequently, catching more and more people’s attention. Some dirty seafood sold in the shop and restaurant causes a lot of trouble for both consumers and doctors. Whether some seafood containing disputably detrimental elements is eatable still remains controvertial. Further more, a large group of people who are allergic to seafood will not accept that seafood is a healthy one. Consequently, the conclusion based on this healthy food assumption is not convincing logically.
In order to make a sound and nice argument, the author had better do more research to make his evidence abundant. He can analyze the intrinsic relations among data in that five years and find out the true tendancy of people’s preference, collect some information about the local family’s economy status, and so on. Only by making his reasoning more discreet can he persuades other people into believing in him.
欢迎各种拍！！！！！！
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-4-8 20:31:18
收藏
收藏
楼主
