新argument 39，再求拍~~

dingda6

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.

In this argument, the arguer indicates that the new Captain Seafood restaurant will be quite popular and profitable in Bay City. To justify the claim, the arguer points that comsumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaruant has increased by 30 percent during the past five years but there are no seafood reastaurant in the city. Also, the arguer cites a nationwide study showing that two-income families prefer to eat in restaurant and care more about healthy food. Although the argument seems reasonable at first glance, it is ill-convinced indeed. The reasons are stated as follows.

First of all, the arguer can not just simply give the recommandation from the nationwide study because there is no information that the two-income families in Bay City will eat fewer home-cooked meals and like healthful eating. Moreover, the study does not show anything about seafood but the arguer misleads that healthful food is equal to sea food. Although seafood may be a kind of healthy food, people in Bay City may choose vegitable instead of seafood and therefore make no contribution to seafood restaurants. So I will not be convinced unless the arguer gives evidence that the assumptions are unlikely.


In addition, the arguer fails to provide some accurate statistics about the consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants. It is true that consumption has increased by 30 percent during the past five years, but maybe it just because the base number is actually a small number and therefore the whole consumption is still not so considerable. Thus, without giving compellent evidence, the arguer can not bolster the recommandation.


Thirdly, even if the evidence turns out to support the argument, the arguer can not draw the conclusion that the new Captain Seafood restaurant will be popupar and profitable. Profibility is a function of both revenue and expense and hence it is entirely possible that the restaurant's cost of obtaining high-quality, healthful seafood, might render it unprofitable despite its popularity. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain why none of these and other alternatives are available.


To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. To draw a better conclusion, the arguer should cite more information about the consumption in Bay City and take every possible consideration into account.

普渡哥

最后一段：
To draw a better conclusion, the arguer should cite more information about the consumption in Bay City and take every possible consideration into account.

to draw a better conclusion 的意思是 找出一个更好的结论。。。
应该写成：更准确地下一个结论。。。因为不是需要更好的结论，而是需要更好的说理。

其他都很好，good job!!

期待更多佳作，也希望能够给其他人的作文提一些意见。你写得很好!

dingda6

谢谢普渡哥提的意见！

lukebrehm

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.

In this argument, the arguer indicates that the new Captain Seafood restaurant will be quite popular and profitable in Bay City. To justify the claim, the arguer points out that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years but that there are no seafood restaurantspresently in the city. Also, the arguer cites that a nationwide study showing that two-income families prefer to eat at restaurants and care about healthy food. Although the argument seems reasonable at first glance, it is ill-conceived indeed. The reasons are stated as follows.

First of all, the arguer can not simply give the recommendation from the nationwide study because there is no information that the two-income families in Bay City will eat fewer home-cooked meals or prefer healthful eating. Moreover, the study does not show anything about seafood but the arguer misleads that healthful food is equal to sea food (you got it backwards, the writer assumes that seafood is healthy without assuming that healthy food is or is equal to seafood). Although seafood may be a kind of healthy food, people in Bay City may choose vegetables instead of seafood and therefore make no contribution to seafood restaurants. So I will not be convinced unless the arguer gives evidence that the assumptions are unlikely (??-very unclear-??).

spelling mistakes:

compelling NOT　compellent (not a word)
recommendation NOT recommandation
popular NOT popupar
profitability NOT profibility

the arguer's argument mentioned . --doesn't sound right, I would prefer "the writer's argument"

Don't assume the part I marked is perfect now because I didn't mark all the mistakes...

Nicely written! 加油！