1006G[Redemption]备考贴 by justliving

ringtailbunnyUID：2579853

说实话，什么XDF现在看来已经是个很僵化的东西了。
我们的目的只有一个：增强说服力（可能的话看看基本的逻辑学，要找国外的，国内的逻辑学教材真是逻辑太不严密了。。）
我们的权威只有一个：ets。（包括他的intro和范文。）
对于什么顺序啊，结构啊都是为自己的分析服务的，不可倒置本末。大多数的精华帖都比XDF更有说服里，它们都说了为什么，而XDF现在越来越倾向于只说是什么，涉及到为什么的时候就开始讲笑话。。。。
貌似我今天火药味有点浓。。

justlivingUID：2754015

16# ringtailbunny

是啊 多看看精华帖比XDF有用多了，现在ETS要求越来越高了，面对大致相同的模板，再好也不可能得高分

justlivingUID：2754015

TOPIC: ARGUMENT23 - A recent sales studyindicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants hasincreased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currentlyoperating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majorityof families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study hasshown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than theydid a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eatinghealthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will bequite popular and profitable.
WORDS: 488
TIME: 01:35:52
DATE: 2010/2/26 15:49:12

1.
单独的30%的数据不具有说服力。首先，也许基数小，增加了现在还是基数小。当地没有S店，也许正是因为消费量还是太小。而且，过去增加不代表将来还增加。

2.
全国性的调查，不能应用到B。B有自己的特殊情况，例如这里的人，他们喜欢在家吃饭。即使他们在外面吃，也不意味着他们会去专门的S店，正如文中所说，他们更关注于健康，所以他们需要的是合理的搭配，而不是专门的海鲜店。例如，他们更可能去吃中国菜，法国菜等，选择更多的店。

3.
最后，结论也是明显唐突的。一个店是否受欢迎并且营利，是有多种因素决定的。例如，税收政策，经营管理水平，成本利润等。而不仅仅是由销量决定的。

Base on somesimply analyze of the recent sales study of Bay City and a nationwide studyabout two-income families, and then synthesizing the two studies and anotherhypothesizes, the author reasoned that it is profitable to manage a new restaurantspecializing in seafood in Bay City. While this argument might be somewhatreasonable at first glance, close scrutiny reveals that it suffers from aseries of unsubstantiated assumptions which render it wholly untenable as itstands.

A thresholdproblem involved in this argument lies in the author's unwarranted assumptionthat the demand of seafood in Bay City is sufficient and will keep sustainedgrowth in the future, at least no worse than current level. However, theargument provides no sufficient evidence to support this presumption. The merefact that 30 percent increase over the past five years is little indication ofthe sufficient market demands. Although the statics 30 percent seems considerable,it is perfectly possible that the actual level of consumption mightnevertheless be very low. Especially, considering the fact that there are norestaurants specialize in seafood. For the sake of making this argument morereasonable and convincing, more studies should be done and presented.

In addition, thearguer takes it for granted that the nationwide study about two-income familiesapplies equally to Bay City's families. Without considering the peculiarity ofBay City, it is imprudent to draw this conclusion. Perhaps the Bay City'sliving cost is so high that all the families could not help but cooking at homefor reducing daily expenses. Or perhaps they like to savor the enjoyment of cookingor the relaxing and sweet family atmosphere. Besides, whether eating outside merelymeans going to seafood restaurants? It is obviously not the case. As thestudies showing that such persons pay more concern about eating healthily, wouldn’tthey prefer a restaurant providing varieties of healthful dishes, including vegetable,meat and seafood as well, just like a Chinese restaurant? Any of thesescenarios, if true, would serve to seriously undermine the arguer’s conclusion.

Even if we concedethat the demand of a new seafood restaurant is sufficient and the two-income familieswould often to enjoy the delicacies, it would be groundless to assert the newrestaurant will be quite popular and profitable. As we all know, whether abusiness is profitable or not usually depends on series of dimensions, such asthe tax policy, the resident consumption capacity, the operating cost andprofit, particularly the management skills. There is a good chance that the consumptionof seafood dishes is considerable, but the profit is scant or even negative, owingto the incredible operating costs. Without considering such factors, theauthor's recommendation may result in substantial losses.

Overall, theauthor's conclusion is too imprudent. Before making a business decision, especiallyjumping into new fields, more preparatory studies should be engaged and more factors should beconsidered, or it would only result in failure.

justlivingUID：2754015

占楼