Argument 39 求拍

WillDream

不知道这几点够不够，算不算主要的逻辑错误？In this argument, the author concludes thatthe new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quitepopular and profitable. To support his/her conclusion, the author cites asurvey which indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay Cityrestaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years and thereare no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Inaddition, the majority of families in Bay  City
are two-income families, and nationwide study hasshown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than theydid a decade ago, but at the same time they are more concerned about healthfuleating. So the new restaurant would be popular and profitable. While it may betrue, the argument is rife with holes and lack of evidences, and thus, notstrong enough to lead to the conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to provideany details about the study, given to support his/her analysis. Since we do notknow the initial consumption of seafood in Bay City
, it is totally possible thatresidents in the city only consume a negligible amount of seafood. Even afterfive years' increasing, the consumption this year may be still in a low level.

What' more, the argument does not give any evidence to guarantee that theincreasing trend will continue in the coming future, thus the validity of thestudy is doubtful.More over, it is also unwarranted to assertthat a restaurant specializing in seafood is needed. The author does notmention that if other restaurants also sell seafood in the city. Perhaps, thereare lots of Italian and Japanese restaurants and they provide consumers with avariety of seafood, as well as other kind of food. Their supply has alreadymeets residents' demand for seafood, and thus the new special restaurant maybecome less successful.

Even if those evidences can be provided,there is still no guarantee that those two-income families, the majority offamilies in Bay City
,will lead popularity and profit to the new restaurant. The author arbitrarilyequates the correlation between two-income families' preference-eatingsignificantly home-cooked meals and more concern about healthy eating-with the cause-and-effect relationship. Their inclination unnecessarily indicates thatthose families will choose to eat seafood outside. Actually they can find manyother choices for healthy eating such as green vegetables and fruit. Unless theauthor can provide relevant evidences to prove it, we can not be convincedeasily.

To sum up, the author fails to establishthe argument with convincing evidences. In order to solidify his/her analysis,more evidences and data about the study cited should be provided. Other factorsthat will influence the popularity and profit of the restaurant also ought tobe taken into consideration. Ii is also welcomed if the author can furtherexplain why a restaurant specializing in seafood is needed.

竹林中人

不错，一般都是三点。