5.27 argument 174 seafood 求猛拍求指导!!!!!!

749896499 · 发表于 2012-5-12 23:16:55

174. "A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about healthful eating. Therefore, the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.

提纲：
(1)   调查不一定可靠；30%的增加如果基于五年前很少的水平，并不能说明更多的消费。
(2)   现在没有专门的海鲜店可能是因为一些其他因素比如地理位置难获得海鲜或者运输成本高等，或许人们根本不喜欢单独吃海鲜而是喜欢和其他菜一起吃。
(3)   全国性的调查不一定适用于Bay City，且调查说更关心健康食品在Bay City 眼里不一定指海鲜

Argument 174

The author claims that the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable. To support this assertion, the author cites a study to show the 30% increase of consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants, and points out that no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood exists, and that he majority of families in Bay City are two-income families. Moreover, he/she cites a nationwide study to justify this assertion. While the conclusion is plausible at the first glance, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the argument is unconvincing in many regards.

AS for the study the author cites, a question need to be answer is whether the study is reliable enough before I can accept any conclusion the author arrives at based on it. However, the scope and the validity is vague. Perhaps the sample was not representative of restaurants in Bay City, asking only those popular restaurants which are often filled with customers. Perhaps the study was 15 pages long, and the respondents did the questionnaire halfheartedly. We just do not know. Moreover, another question need to be answer about the study is if the consumption of seafood five years ago is small. If so, the 30 percent increase does mean nothing. Or the consumption of other dishes may have been increased 150 percent, thus the 30 percent’s increase weaken the authors conclusion. Only if the study is fully reliable, valid, clear, and reliable, can it use to back the author’s conclusion.

Additionally, the author falsely assumes that the restaurants that specializes in seafood will make a big fortune because of there being no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Another question that helps to evaluate the argument is the reason of the market vacancy of specialized seafood restaurants. It is likely that the supply of seafood cannot be timely because of the location of Bay City. It is also likely that cost in transformation of seafood is too high to support specialized seafood restaurants. If so, we can understand the market vacancy of specialized seafood restaurants very well. Unless these possibilities can be ruled out, the causal relationship between market vacancy and high profits is weak, if not unfounded.

Furthermore, even if his/her deduction and inference made in the argument above is true, the author still fails to perform a feasibility analysis of big profits of the specialized seafood restaurants. Firstly, the nationwide study may not be suit for the Bay City because of the special factors in the Bay City. For example, people in Bay City may have been observed the customs that they have dinner just at home, while the restaurants are run for tourists, and the tourists would be less with the economic recession recently. Also we may ask whether seafood are healthy food in residents’ eyes. If they consider seafood are the reason why people fall ill, they will not try them. Otherwise, they might purchase seafood. The author’s reasoning is definitely flawed unless he/she can convince me that these and other scenarios are unlikely.

Pursuing high profits, the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood may start. However, the reasoning the author makes is invalid and misleading, basing on my above analysis. He/she cannot expect a popular restaurant, if they just collect these clues. Careful analysis of all the factors I have presented is the best first step to making a decision.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-5-13 00:30:47

a question need to be answer is whether the study is reliable enough before I can accept any conclusion the author arrives at based on it.

need 应该是needs, answer应该是answered. 这个句子的语法结构不专业。

作者要多背多练啊。

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-5-13 00:31:54

He/she cannot expect a popular restaurant, if they just collect these clues.

he/she they....这是什么对应关系？

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-5-13 00:33:36

Careful analysis of all the factors I have presented is the best first step to making a decision.

the best first step可以写成 the best step to begin with

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-5-13 00:33:49

加油加油！！

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-5-13 00:38:36

need to be answer ？？？
我觉得最好不要在一段里面火力太分散，第一个质疑点，你就质疑30%这个数据就好了，写的全面就行，不必再添油加醋的些其他太多。第二个第三个也差不多这样。
另外我觉得，质疑的时候，并不是简单地指出不合理的地方，然后给出其他的解释，而应该还要分析这种不合理的依据，然后因为依据的不合理，给出其他的可能性。这类似治病，指出哪里有病，还要指出病因，而不是直接就开药。

749896499 · 发表于 2012-5-13 13:57:39

谢谢斑竹们意见!! 感觉收获很多发现有很多不管是细节还是成文思路都急需改进会继续用心努力、

[作文互改] 5.27 argument 174 seafood 求猛拍求指导!!!!!!

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()