10G，欢迎广大G友拍砖与调教~

CinbladyyuUID：2957697

Argument
新G题号：174
题目：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.

写作要求：Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.
老GRE对应题号：23

In this argument the author contend with confidence that the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be popular and profitable due to several reasons he draws, which, however, are not tenable after a close scrutiny.
First in the place, the author indicates a thirty percent rise of consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurant during the past five years from a recent sale study. But is the sale study convincible? What institutions execute this study? Without these messages I can hardly be persuaded to trust the statistic of this study. What’s more, even presuming that the study is convincible, the statistic drawn from it hardly expatiate anything owing to a lack of exact number of consumption of seafood dishes along with the proportion. Take this into consideration because one can be befuddled by this statistic when the exact number of consumption of seafood dishes was only 10 five years ago, and then has risen by 3, which is a case in which the consumption of seafood dishes is still not much.
Moreover, the fact that there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood does not seem to support the contention held by the author, for it could be caused by the people’s reluctance of eating seafood, rather than the author’s apparent wish that there might be fewer competitions. To make it more plausible, the author should carry out some surveys concerning the residents’ habit of food in this region, only then can he obtain a comprehensive understanding about the reasons about this fact.
Finally, it’s precipitous to draw a nationwide study to explain the situations in this region, since two-income families might eat more home-cooked meal in this region than the average statistics drawn a study concerning the whole nation. Even though they do eat more outside home, it’s still out of question to determine that the residents will choose to eat seafood, which is highly dependent on their habit of eating, the traditions in this region—for example, there could a tradition against eating seafood during some time every year, as well as the ability of affording to eat seafood every meal despite more incomes per family—after all, seafood is so sumptuous that one should pay a lot to eat seafood everyday, of which the expenses could often exceed his incomes.
In sum, the conclusion of the author is flawed in various aspects. It would be more persuasive to articulate that the new Captain Seafood restaurant whose specialty is seafood should be quite popular and profitable as long as the following questions are answered carefully: (1) What is the exact number of the consumption of seafood? (2) What are the true reasons for the scarcity of restaurants pertaining to seafood? (3) What is the trend of eating seafood in this region, are there factors such as traditions against seafood as well as insufficient incomes of families to pay for seafood inhibiting the popularity of seafood? Only by answering these questions properly can the author draw a wiser conclusion.