习作argument23 拍拍更健康

bzr2915UID: 2612029

23A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

1\消费量与盈利没有直接因果
2\专营海鲜店优势不明
3\双收入家庭食品消费结构不明

The argument is not cogent in several facets. First, there is no casual relationship between consumption and benefits. In addition, whether a specialized seafood restaurant has an advantage over a common one is open to the question. The argument also fails to make clear the details about two-income families' construction of food consumption. I will discuss all these logical flaws in turn.

The consumption of seafood dishes has increase greatly can not indicated that the seafood market are boosted by it. Common sense tells us consumption goods which are sold out in a larger amount the product tends to be cheaper than it was. For example, the computer, while it was expensive as just appear, which is a common equipment to the modern life for its accessible price and better quality which result from its large-scale production. And the consequence is that even though the computer's consumption soar up as time goes, the whole benefit for the market is in a balance. In addition, the more consumption of seafood might be harmful to the restaurants' owners as the more seafood dishes the harder competition between the restaurants. Furthermore, even if there is a casual relationship between them, the recently study can not predict a positive future of the city's seafood market, it is easy affected by the factors such like government' policy, seafood resource, people's tendency and so on.

The second flaw that weakens the logic of this argument is that the assumption that the restaurants which specialized in seafood is better than the common ones,
which lacks evidence. A reasonable deduction which based on the fact that there is no specialized restaurant in BC might be that as there is no experience to run such a restaurant the specialized ones might be fail to compete the common ones which have more often-come customers and higher service level.

Finally, even if the author can substantiate all of the forgoing assumptions, his assumption that two-income families make the biggest contribution to consumption of seafood is unwarranted. There is no evidence to prove that the two-income families tend to eat seafood dishes rather than other nutrition food. Furthermore, the study was made by a national wide research, which is possible not typical for BC. People may have various eating habits in different regions, in this case, BC's citizens might tend to cook at home rather than go out.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed. The argument could be improved by pointing out the interest ratio of seafood market in recent years rather than the consumption rate and offering a compelling evidence to prove that a specialized restaurant are better than the common ones. It could also be improved by making a detailed survey about the local families' eating habits.