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.
The writer of argument concludes that the new Captain Seafood restaurant will be famous and profitable. However, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on the lists of assumptions all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first problem with the argument is that the writer assumes that by 30 percent increment in the seafood consumption in the Bay City restaurants mean that people in the last five years change their appetite and incline to use the seafood. However, there is no any lucid and cogent data to support this assumption. Maybe in the past five years, Bay City appeals more tourists whose tastes are majorly shaped based on the sea foods. Consequently, the new tourists in Bay City lead to the enhancement of seafood utilization. Or perhaps, these 30 percent increment is related to the scanty of options in the food menus. Maybe the consumers cannot fit their appetite and choose the seafood as the last option to have some nutrition. Either scenario provides a possible explanation about this increment beyond the alternation of people's taste and consumptions.
Another problem with the argument is that the writer based upon the current families' structures and a nationwide research concludes that the dwellers of Big City are willing to dine at outdoor instead of the cooking by themselves, and they are more inclined to possess a healthy food style. However, as it mentioned this survey is a nationwide survey and covers a holistic; however, vague outcomes. Maybe in the study, the case-study is allocated to a specific region, which based upon the society's hectic lifestyle the families prefer to dine at the restaurants and this conclusion extended to all nations. Or perhaps the families in the Big City own the traditions which oblige them to have dinner together at home; besides, if the healthy eating habit is an accurate assumption about the families in Big City, it can be considered that the families prefer to cook the dishes by themselves. Since the homemade dishes are healthier. Without accounting these and other subtle points about the survey and its links with big City, this conclusion is inaccurate.
The third problem with the argument is that the writer surmises that the new Captain Restaurant which serves the seafood will be popular and profitable. However, there is no any concrete statistic and information about these restaurants. Even in a case which all assumptions counted as valid ones, there is no guarantee that this specific restaurant will be popular. Maybe it locates in the unsuitable region where it is arduous for the consumers to do their purchases from that spot. Or maybe, the foods presents by the restaurant do not match with the people accustomed tastes. In all of these cases, the restaurant will face the knotty and serious financial problems, and cannot achieve the expected outcomes.
All in all, to persuade me that this conclusion is accurate, the writer should provide the lists of evidence that the 30 percent increment is related to the alternation of native people’s tastes, the validity of nationwide survey in Big City, and the new Captain restaurant is located in a decent location and presents the accustomed tastes. Otherwise, all mentioned assumptions in the argument are vague and suspicion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-06 | manideepbonam | 23 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | cnegus | 63 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Nithin Narla | 29 | view |
| 2019-11-20 | IFE360TOXIC | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-07 | Dhruv_gre | 50 | view |
- The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority. 62
- 1.Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In de 62
- It has recently been announced that a new movie theater may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use reasons and details to support your answer. 76
- tpo9 86
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 260, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...e to use the seafood. However, there is no any lucid and cogent data to support th...
^^
Line 5, column 101, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'nationwide research'.
Suggestion: nationwide research
...pon the current families structures and a nationwide research concludes that the dwellers of Big City...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 894, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...refer to cook the dishes by themselves. Since the homemade dishes are healthier. With...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 172, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...pular and profitable. However, there is no any concrete statistic and information ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'third', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256622516556 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.12582781457 0.15541462614 81% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0844370860927 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0380794701987 0.0520304965353 73% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0248344370861 0.0272364105082 91% => OK
Prepositions: 0.120860927152 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0215231788079 0.0416121511921 52% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.74358785092 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0248344370861 0.026700313972 93% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.16059602649 0.113004496875 142% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0165562913907 0.0255425247493 65% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0115894039735 0.0127820249294 91% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3325.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 549.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.05646630237 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386156648452 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.298724954463 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.214936247723 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127504553734 0.135150697306 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74358785092 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431693989071 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.4577426601 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.8695652174 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.1268466862 57.7814097925 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.565217391 141.986410481 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8695652174 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.391304347826 0.724660767414 54% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 53.7420606637 51.9672348444 103% => OK
Elegance: 2.11403508772 1.8405768891 115% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.382864112957 0.441005458295 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.113239038496 0.135418324435 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0774859454306 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.559687663883 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.202287512651 0.147661913831 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.163016678705 0.193483328276 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841362692832 0.0970749176394 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.543125721645 0.42659136922 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0965834770274 0.0774707102158 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281282910916 0.312017818177 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727936207699 0.0698173142475 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.