At first glance, the given argument offers a reasonable explanation for why a new Captain Seafood restaurant would be popular and profitable in Bay City. Upon closer inspection, numerous questions arise about the details supporting information provided. The argument might be sound, but a conclusion cannot be reached without first addressing these issues.
First, the author makes assumptions about seafood consumption in Bay City that require additional support. He cites a trend indicating that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City has increased by 30 percent in the past five years. To be a true indication of a strong market for seafood in Bay City, the author would need to provide data about the initial seafood consumption rates in Bay City. It is possible that few people consumed seafood before and the rise is negligible, but an increase in an already strong market would provide meaningful support to his argument.
Furthermore, the author also cites the mere absence of seafood restaurants to imply a potential niche for such an establishment in the city, raising questions about the current supply of seafood. What remains unclear is where the citizens are currently eating seafood, and whether they are satisfied with the current providers. If citizens are content with the quality of seafood provided by restaurants currently present in Bay city, Captain Seafood might not have sufficient draw to produce the level of profit promised by the author.
Finally, the given argument raises several questions about a nationwide survey used to characterize the residents of Bay City. The author uses Bay City’s high population of two-income households and a nationwide survey to suggest they will eat fewer home cooked meals and be concerned with healthy eating. It is unclear what demographics were used to produce these results, as the two-income households in Bay City could deviate significantly from the national correlations. Even if these correlations hold, it remains unclear that they indicate a desire for seafood restaurants. While two-income families eat fewer home-cooked meals on average, it is unclear from the survey wording that they do not prefer takeout or precooked meals from grocery stores to eating at restaurants. Likewise, the national trends suggest that these families are more health conscious, but it is unclear that seafood would be viewed as a healthy alternative.
The argument provided supports its conclusion in favor of a Captain Seafood restaurant with claims that raise more questions than they answer. Without further details about the data used, opening a new Captain Seafood restaurant cannot be justified with this statement alone.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. Need to put argument 1 and argument 2 together for:
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.
2. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Therefore, the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2225 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.26 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.751 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.292 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.595 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, likewise, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2286.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40425531915 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82709304903 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501182033097 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 700.2 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.1467421579 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 127.0 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276067389828 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103374617316 0.0743258471296 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106505740509 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159695040933 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.096274543034 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.