argument 39，求拍

天鹅云尖

还有不到一个月就要考试了，大家帮忙看看吧，先谢谢了
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 specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


This argument concludes that the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable. To support the conclusion the speaker cites a recent study which indicates the consumption of seafood dishes has increased during the past five years. And there are no city restaurant whose speciality is seafood. A nationwide study has shown that two-income families eat fewer home-cooked meals and concern more about healthful eating. However, this argument suffers from several evidences which need to be evaluate.


First of all, a recent sale study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years. Does it really mean that the people there are more likely to eat seafood? In order to evaluate this problem, the speaker should consider whether the result of study is authentic and reliable. A study among only five restaurants would certainly not show the whole city restaurants' situation. During the past five years, the consumption of seafood has increased by 30 percent. Perhaps the whole consumption of food in the city is increased by 50 percent because of the increasing population or tourists. In this way the evidence may weaken the argument. And the author had better get the accurate data about the total number which participating in the study and situations about other kinds of food.


Secondly, there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Consider about this phenomenon, the evidence that whether this city is short of this kind of restaurants should be discussed. It is entirly possible that other restaurants already can cater to the customer's eating need for the seafood and people are indifferent to the restaurants which only have seafood, for instance the people who are allegic to seafood. Without evaluating this evidence, the author cannot convince me that the new Captain seafood restaurant would be popular and profitable.


Thirdly, the author unfairly assume that the families in Bay City are same as the whole nation. It is possible that the city's study is totally different from the nationwide study. Regardless of this difference, the two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals did not imply that these people would go out for seafood. Perhaps they just eat dinner in the office or take some food back from work and get food at home. Moreover, the study says that families express more concern about healthful eating. In this fact, the speaker should firstly get the definition about healthful eating. Does eating seafood equals eating healthful? Perhaps the seafood in this city is gotten from the polluted water. Or the seafood here have a small amount of toxin. Furthermore, seafood is not the only food for better health, hence the families may choose other food as well. Considering about this evidence, the families may not eat that much seafood. In short, withouting accounting for these evidences, the argument remain unconvincing.


In sum, the author cannot justify his argument on the basis of the scant evidence. To bolster the argument, the author should get more data about the recent study on consumption of seafood dishes and the nationwide study can also be practiced in Bay City.

lukebrehm

your more than welcome

天鹅云尖

THX......

天鹅云尖

谢谢，我会努力修改的

lukebrehm

1. And there are no city restaurants who specialize in seafood.
2. A nationwide study has also shown that two-income families eat fewer home-cooked meals and are more concerned about healthful eating.
3. However, this argument suffers from several assumptions which need to be evaluated.
4. city's restaurant situation.
5. During the past five years, the consumption of seafood has increased by 30 percent. (repetitive)
6. Perhaps the consumption of food  in the city as a whole has increased by 50 percent (thus the consumption of seafood would have gone down 20 percent in comparison instead of rising)

--one more noticeably big mistake further down--

7. In short, without accounting for this evidence (evidence as singular can still be used when referring to more than one), the argument remains unconvincing.

nice work, keep it up

jz20000cn

写得不错，但觉得理由有点乱和拼凑，需要在逻辑组织上加工。记得：GRE写作不是刻意找茬，而是顺着题目的逻辑找漏洞。这种能力只能在CD练出来。