Argument23 【成功限时检查第一篇，还有4天就考试了，希望斑斑有空给看看】求狠拍

gyyxUID: 2290150

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: 447          TIME: 00:29:23          DATE: 2007-7-26 14:51:49

In the argument the author has a good idea to open a restaurant specializing in seafood, which he/she thinks popular and profitable. However, in my view, this idea is too hazardous and less calculated, which is not advisable.

Firstly, the author resort to the increasing need in seafood of ordinary restaurant and no restaurants specializing in seafood as evidence to prove that seafood restaurants will have markets in Bay City. However, the fact will not come to the way like the author thinks. Maybe in the past people only eat a little seafood in ordinary restaurants, and this increasing although large in percent, not to guarantee seafood are popular in Bay. Or perhaps, people in Bay like various food, which ordinary restaurants could provide not only seafood but also other types. Moreover, no currently operating city restaurants do not mean no one has the same idea with the author, but after close scrutiny he/she conclude that the market in Bay city is not suit for a seafood restaurants.

Then, the author take the increasing family income and they want to eat healthy as a reason for the restaurant, which not sufficient in three aspects. First, a two-income family does not mean they have the economy ability to eat outside often. May be their income are not sufficient and they have to cook at home. Secondly, the national survey that two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago do not mean they are always go to restaurant for meals. Maybe they are too busy only to buy some fast-food for meals. Or perhaps this situation in Bay City is not consistent with national situation, as people in Bay City like cooking themselves. Furthermore, even if these two-income families have money to eat in restaurant often, they are possible not choose seafood restaurants. Thirdly, the author assumes eating seafood as a healthy life style, which maybe the citizen in Bay City could not agree on. So, as these reasons, the author could not convince me that the restaurant will have market.

Finally, the author ignores some other factors in making a restaurant popular and profitable. Even if we assume that there is an increasing market for seafood, and people are interested in seafood restaurant, without good service, low cost, and even comfortable environment, they would make profits.

So, as a conclusion, in my view, this idea opening a restaurant specializing in seafood is not as well as it sound, lots of information about the market, the reason of ordinary restaurant's increasing in seafood, and the elaborate plan about the restaurant should be provided, in order to support the author's idea, not let him/her to risk.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-27 12:13 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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: 447          TIME: 00:29:23          DATE: 2007-7-26 14:51:49

In the argument the author has a good idea to open a restaurant specializing in seafood, which he/she thinks(would be) popular and profitable. However, in my view, this idea is too hazardous and less calculated, which is not advisable(thus not advisable 注意句间的连接词).

Firstly, the author resort to the increasing need in seafood of ordinary restaurant and no restaurants specializing in seafood as evidence to prove that seafood restaurants will have markets in Bay City. However, the fact will not come to the way like the author thinks.(先解释why再给maybe，有增长不等于市场大，先抽象概括作者错误再具体提出假设能让你的假设出现得不那么唐突) Maybe in the past people only eat a little seafood in ordinary restaurants, and this increasing although large in percent, not to guarantee seafood are popular in Bay.(why? popular和需求量大也不是必然相关的，直接解释数据就行了) Or perhaps, people in Bay like various food, which ordinary restaurants could provide not only seafood but also other types.(这个和你的攻击点有什么关系？吃多种食物不代表不吃这种，而且也没有涉及到增长量的问题。给出可能性以后把话说完，让它能支持你的论点，不然如此笼统的说一句对证明论点没有任何意义。"which situation may indicate that the whole restaurants' dishes have been increasingly popular, due to possible life-style changes of citizens, making it goundless to conclude that concentrate on sea-foods can be a good choice in those diverse accessible markets.) Moreover, no currently operating city restaurants do not mean no one has the same idea with the author(, leaving it open to the situation that a drastical competition may come to appearance after the restaurant being established, while others may go in the same way), but(and therefore only) after close scrutiny (can) he/she conclude that the market in Bay city is not suit(able) for a seafood restaurants.(这句话的表达很模糊，给你修改了下。照理说but表转折，后面说在调查之后作者会发现不适合开，那么前面的意思应该类似于适合开，但你的意思却跟这个没有联系，所以用but就很牵强)

Then, the author take the increasing family income(作者没说收入增加了) and they want to eat healthy as a reason for the restaurant, which not sufficient(sufficiently support his argumentation 发现你很喜欢用which引导的定语从句，但其实定语从句里which/that引导的是最没信息量的，很多时候用thus+分词结构或者别的表示逻辑关系的结构来连接句子会比较精确) in three aspects. First, a two-income family does not mean they have the economy ability to eat outside often.(作者已经说了调查显示他们下馆子多了家里吃少了) May be their income are not sufficient and they have to cook at home.(这点不成立) Secondly, the national survey that two-income families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago do not mean they are always go to restaurant for meals. Maybe they are too busy only to buy some fast-food for meals. Or perhaps this situation in Bay City is not consistent with national situation, as people in Bay City like cooking themselves.(第一，这点和之前那个吃快餐完全不是一个出发点，不应该都归在secondly里，第二，这点没推理没论据，光凭猜测让观点很没立场，注意指出每个地区的人们饮食习惯因传统、经济、观念原因而不同，然后说地方与国家不同) Furthermore, even if these two-income families have money to eat in restaurant often, they are possible not choose seafood restaurants.(这个furthermore算跟谁并列的？而且完全又是一句无细节的判断句，需要解释：可能seafood吃的多的是退休老人，而有收入人群偏好快捷的商务餐，所以作者这个论据不能支持开海食店) Thirdly, the author assumes(indicates) eating seafood as a healthy life style, which maybe the citizen in Bay City could not agree on.(why? seafood不等于healthy, 可能相反因为高盐高胆固醇而没有市场) So, as these reasons, the author could not convince me that the restaurant will have market.

Finally, the author ignores some other factors in making a restaurant popular and profitable. Even if we assume that there is an increasing market for seafood, and people are interested in seafood restaurant, without good service, low cost, and even comfortable environment, they would make profits(good service, low cost, comfortable environment都是饭店要做的事情，作者做了第一步论证，第二步是交给饭店自己去搞的，你攻击这个驳不倒作者，就好象我说在这开一家店会受欢迎，因为有市场，你在那置疑说我开不好因为我服务不好——这种还没成的事何来这种推测？别的饭店能开好为什么我就开不好？应该从题目的观点出发进行推论，比如商店里卖海食和开海食商店区别很大，后者要什么菜没有实践经验，因此很难实现，可能出来的搭配不能合消费者的口味因为它是单纯的海食店，而之前人们去的则是综合性的；再考虑成本、进货渠道等因素，可能使这么个商店在当地开不起来，开了即使受欢迎也会赔本。总之攻击针对题目是攻击精确有效的前提，象你这样说些套什么商店头上都说的过去的它因其实套什么商店头上都没有说服力).

So, as a conclusion, in my view, this idea opening a restaurant specializing in seafood is not as well as it sound, lots of information about the market, the reason of ordinary restaurant's increasing in seafood, and the elaborate plan about the restaurant should be provided, in order to support the author's idea, not let him/her to risk.


总评：
文章很多论点都犯了ARGUMENT的常犯错误，即论据没有完善表达，不能支持论点。写的时候你怎么想的，觉得这些论据怎么能支持你的观点都整理清楚，写的时候都写出来，不要话说一半就不说了。
分论点选取角度还可以，但表达上过于死板，缺少了对作者错误的抽象总结，这样使攻击也有点方向不明，于是出了破题点错误的毛病，注意你攻击哪个论据就先说作者这个论据有问题，然后揣测下作者用这个论据有什么问题，然后制定攻击策略，不要想到什么说什么。
最后几天有空研究下北美范文，实践证明它的思路还是能够帮助提高分数的，特别你现在这样的情况，如何深入论证保证论据能支持论点是当务之急。