argument23,请帮帮忙！批评一下！

wildUID: 189262

Argument23  第2篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分7秒     388 words
从2005年1月19日20时18分到2005年1月19日20时30分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
The arguer try to get the conclusion that founding a new restaurant specializing in seafood in Bay City will be popular and profitable; basing on the reasons of seafood dishes' consumption increased over the several past years, and two-income families which are majority in this city eat fewer home-cooked meals. At the first glance, the arguer’s point of view is reasonable, but through deeply consideration, there are lots of fallacies in logical between the basis and the verdict.

First of all, an increasing in the seafood consumption not means there is a need of restaurants that specialize in seafood. It is rational to think that common restaurants with the reply of seafood are enough for the consumers. Maybe most of the people in the Bay City just like eating seafood with other kinds of common cuisines such as turkey, fruits and desserts. Only eat seafood will not let people feel good, after all, with general knowledge, we know that nearly no people like a dish table filled with only meat or only vegetables. Of course, the condition with seafood is similar.

Further more, the result of national survey of the two-income families can not represent the condition of the Bay City. The arguer tries to let others believe that the majority families in Bay City tend to eat outside in the restaurants. But he/she neglect the fact that the survey is a nationwide one, maybe the couples in this city just like to eat at home.

Even granting the two-income families prefer to eat outside, there is no evidence to guarantee that they will like to eat seafood and eat in the restaurants specializing in seafood. The arguer only says these families express more concerning about eating healthily, but this is not equal to they tend to chose to eat more seafood. Even seafood contain less fat and maybe healthier than other kinds of meat, only eating seafood is not healthy. Many people get allergic with seafood, and the nutrition in the seafood is limited. So a restaurant only serve with seafood may not be liked by the citizens in Bay City who are concerning with health.

The last reason but also crucial is that even though the people in this city will like such kinds of seafood restaurants, such restaurants may not be profitable. Because the profit is concerning with many other factors such as management and cost. As in common sense, the material of seafood need to be maintained fresh or even alive. To get a place and methods to seed such sea creatures maybe costs a lot. Furthermore, whether a person with experience of managing seafood restaurants and at the same time familiar with the restaurant market in Bay City can be find is also open to doubt.  

According to all the above reasons, the arguer can not get such a conclusion just by such frail reasons. To persuade others to for his conclusion, the author needs more logical and rigorous reasons to verify that there is really a large seafood market in Bay City, as while as seafood restaurants are required and will be profitable.

dgfyhchinaUID: 190311

The arguer try to get the conclusion that founding a new restaurant specializing in seafood in Bay City will be popular and profitable; basing on the reasons of seafood dishes' consumption increased over the several past years, and two-income families which are majority in this city eat fewer home-cooked meals. At the first glance, the arguer’s point of view is reasonable, but through deeply consideration, there are lots of fallacies in logical between the basis and the verdict.

First of all, an increasing in the seafood consumption not means there is a need of restaurants that specialize in seafood. It is rational to think that common restaurants with the reply of seafood are enough for the consumers. Maybe most of the people in the Bay City just like eating seafood with other kinds of common cuisines such as turkey, fruits and desserts. Only eat seafood will not let people feel good, after all, with general knowledge, we know that nearly no people like a dish table filled with only meat or only vegetables. Of course, the condition with seafood is similar.

Further more, the result of national survey of the two-income families can not represent the condition of the Bay City. The arguer tries to let others believe that the majority families in Bay City tend to eat outside in the restaurants. But he/she neglect(s) the fact that the survey is a nationwide one, maybe the couples in this city just like to eat at home.( 可以扩充，即使都工作收入不一定高，

Even granting the two-income families prefer to eat outside, there is no evidence to guarantee that they will like to eat seafood and eat in the restaurants specializing in seafood. The arguer only says these families express more concerning about eating healthily, but this is not equal to they tend to chose to eat more seafood. Even seafood contain less fat and maybe healthier than other kinds of meat, only eating seafood is not healthy. Many people get allergic with seafood, and the nutrition in the seafood is limited. So a restaurant only serve with seafood may not be liked by the citizens in Bay City who are concerning with health.

The last reason but also crucial is that even though the people in this city will like such kinds of seafood restaurants, such restaurants may not be profitable. Because the profit is concerning with many other factors such as management and cost. As in common sense, the material of seafood need to be maintained fresh or even alive. To get a place and methods to seed such sea creatures maybe costs a lot. Furthermore, whether a person with experience of managing seafood restaurants and at the same time familiar with the restaurant market in Bay City can be find is also open to doubt.

According to all the above reasons, the arguer can not get such a conclusion just by such frail reasons. To persuade others to for his conclusion, the author needs more logical and rigorous reasons to verify that there is really a large seafood market in Bay City, as while as seafood restaurants are required and will be profitable.（第一个攻击点可以是study,尽管海鲜增加30%，但可能其他增加的更多，这样还可以加一段）写得可以，比我写得好，快

wildUID: 189262

非常感谢你的修改意见，尤其是最后一个，对我很有启发。：）