Argument23 快上考场了 鼓起勇气求拍~~

sarawu1989UID: 2717145

TOPIC: ARGUMENT23 - A 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.
WORDS: 453
TIME: 00:28:00
DATE: 2010/3/27 16:53:06

In this argument the author concludes that opening a restaurant making seafood will be popular and profitable in Bay City. To justify the conclusion, the author cites the increasing consumption of seafood in Bay City and a nationwide study showing families in Bay City tend to eat healthily. However, based on these flawed evidences and assumptions, the author hastily makes this conclusion.

To begin with, the nationwide study showing clear trends that two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals and focus more on eating healthily does not necessarily apply specifically to Bay City. It is quite possible that these families in Bay City do not have a strong purchase ability, or that their parents also live with them, which renders them usually to have dinner at home. Or perhaps these families do not like seafood very much, and the increase of consumption of seafood in Bay City is attributed to some other families. For that matter, the nationwide trends that the author cites amount to scant evidence.

Even assuming that the national survey accurately reflect the situation in Bay City, the author takes a one side view of eating healthily, while overlooks other health meals besides seafood. It is entirely possible that people have more and more choices for healthy diet, and not everyone who cares about health could like the special taste of seafood. What is more, due to pollution, the case that iron accumulated in sea animals did harm to human is quite common. And inappropriate method of cooking seafood also would bring about damage. As a result, without excluding these risks of eating seafood, the author cannot justify his conclusion.

Last but not the least, even if many people in Bay City do want to eat seafood dishes, the author falsely assumes that this trend is sufficient to achieve profitable of a new restaurant specializing in seafood. Perhaps citizens prefer the former restaurant and they are willing to wait in that restaurant, rather than to have less delicious seafood in the new one. Or maybe more seafood restaurants will come out due to the hopeful inspect, which in turn cause excessive competition and no one could make profits. Anyway, without ruling out these and other possibilities, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion for future.

In a nut shell, the conclusion reaches in this argument is unsound and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should substantiate that citizens in Bay City would follow the nationwide trend and that they would choose seafood dishes as healthy diet. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment until more information about how the new restaurant makes profits is provided. Only in this way, can the evidences and assumptions better bolster the conclusion.

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

In this argument the author concludes that opening a restaurant making seafood will be popular and profitable in Bay City. To justify the conclusion, the author cites the increasing consumption of seafood in Bay City and a nationwide study showing families in Bay City tend to eat healthily. However, based on these flawed evidences and assumptions, the author hastily makes this conclusion.
To begin with, the nationwide study showing clear trends that two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals and focus more on eating healthily does not necessarily apply specifically to Bay City. It is quite possible that these families in Bay City do not have a strong purchase ability, or that their parents also live with them(题目说的是the majority of families in B are two-income families，这跟父母在不在身边没有直接联系), which renders them usually to have dinner at home. Or perhaps these families do not like seafood very much, and the increase of consumption of seafood in Bay City is attributed to some other families.(题目中有两个study，一个是recent sales study，一个是nationwide study，你把这两个混淆了) For that matter, the nationwide trends that the author cites amount to scant evidence.（这一段你主要攻击的是整体不代表局部，但是攻击不到点上，题目中说nationwide study表现出很多家庭不在家吃饭，同时关注饮食健康。你说B的人在家吃饭，这点很对，但是还有一点，就是他们不一定多注重饮食健康，这样才和整体论述相悖。这之间还有一个问题就是，关注饮食健康就一定代表着要是seafood么？就算B的人也关注饮食健康，也在外面吃饭，但他们不一定选择seafood，这才是你展开的第二个论点，对不对？你攻击的问题在于太快转移战场，还没有攻击透彻就进入下一个了，就会给人不痛不痒的感觉。还有，审题要再仔细些）
Even assuming that the national survey accurately reflect the situation in Bay City, the author takes a one side view of eating healthily, while overlooks other health meals besides seafood. It is entirely possible that people have more and more choices for healthy diet, and not everyone who cares about health could like the special taste of seafood. What is more, due to pollution, the case that iron accumulated in sea animals did harm to human is quite common. And inappropriate method of cooking seafood also would bring about damage. As a result, without excluding these risks of eating seafood, the author cannot justify his conclusion.（risks不够概括，只表达了seafood不一定健康，没有表达你说的第一点，就是健康食品选择很多。但是这一点的探讨不错）
Last but not the least, even if many people in Bay City do want to eat seafood dishes, the author falsely assumes that this trend is sufficient to achieve profitable of a new restaurant specializing in seafood. Perhaps citizens prefer the former restaurant and they are willing to wait in that restaurant, rather than to have less delicious seafood in the new one.（注意审题，题目中说 there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood，作者强调的是specialize，所以你攻击的点不在之前的饭店，而在与specialize in seafood这一理念能否奏效）
Or maybe more seafood restaurants will come out due to the hopeful inspect, which in turn cause excessive competition and no one could make profits.（这句话太绝对，没人获利消费去哪里了？可以说由于竞争激烈导致author要开的店不一定盈利） Anyway, without ruling out these and other possibilities, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion for future.
In a nut shell, the conclusion reaches in this argument is unsound and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should substantiate that citizens in Bay City would follow the nationwide trend and that they would choose seafood dishes as healthy diet. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment until more information about how the new restaurant makes profits is provided. Only in this way, can the evidences and assumptions better bolster the conclusion.

行文中规中矩，语言流畅，思路也较为清楚，每段开头和结尾都注意总结，这点不错。但是硬伤在于没有仔细审题，所以攻击有失偏颇，模板的痕迹还是在的。
不过B1，分析的不够好，有些混乱。B2和B3还是不错的。如果对题目的分析可以更准确更详尽的话，相信文章会写的不错，以限时来讲，思路与观点发展都不错，细节问题一定要再注意哦。

sarawu1989UID: 2717145

2# sunflower_iris
恩恩 非常感谢~~~