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 Argument claims that the new seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood will be a popular restaurant and will get profits. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The author have come to this conclusion based on increased consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants. The conclusion relies on several assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First of all, the arguments readily assumes that the two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps the families may employ chefs in their home and eat healthy food. The families might not like the outside food and only eat the home food. If any of these has merit, then the conclusion drawn from the original argument is significantly weakened.
Second, the argument claims that families in bay city express more concern about healthful eating. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument doesnot demonstrate a correlation between health consciousness and profits of seafood restaurant. Perhaps, the person who is health conscious might not eat seafood. For example, the seafoods like prawns and other foods are not too good for heart patients. If the argument had provided the evidence that how sea food is healthy for persons with heart problems ,then it would have been more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author assumes that Captain seafood restaurant will have same profits as the Bay City restaurants. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, Are people in Captain seafood restaurant are same as the people in bay city area? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that claims made by author are more of a wishful thinking rather that substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey analysis of profits of Bay City restaurants. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about how the seafood restaurant should be popular and profitable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-10 | Harish_07 | 73 | view |
| 2022-10-03 | YACHI PATEL | 54 | view |
| 2022-08-25 | Sumilak | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-14 | parangat90 | 68 | view |
| 2022-08-02 | aggy | 59 | view |
- Extinction of dinosaurs 78
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client Most homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating Last heating season that regi 78
- TOEFL integrated writing Altruism 100
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing During the past year Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on the job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are one hour shorter than our 58
- It is better to work as a team than as an individual to succeed 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 390 350
No. of Characters: 2012 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.444 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.159 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.682 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.727 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.809 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.05 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 522, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... healthy for persons with heart problems ,then it would have been more convincing ...
^^
Line 7, column 208, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion in several critical respects...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2073.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 390.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31538461538 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79360239345 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494871794872 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.8375776538 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2272727273 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7272727273 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68181818182 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171790594391 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562089615496 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0758973974243 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10450298489 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641618661769 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.