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
The argument presents a prediction that claims the new Captain Seafood restaurant in the Bay City is going to be a successful business. To support his prognostication, the author relies on two major assumptions. Since Bay City restaurants has experienced a 30 percent increase in the consumption of seafood dishes, the author assumes that a specialized restaurant in seafood should be profitable. Also, the fact that both parents in most of the families of Bay City have jobs, has led the author to consider that they eat out more but they also care about healthy food. Based on these unexamined suppositions the author predicts that the new restaurant is going to be a triumphant for the city.
Firstly, the statement claims that there was a study regarding the consumption of seafood dishes in the Bay City restaurants, but there is no available evidence, statistics or information to convince the reader that the number of seafood dishes has increased significantly. Perhaps, there was a major growth in the population of the city that caused a 30 percent increase in the number of seafood dishes of all restaurants. Also, the author should clarify that the study examined how many restaurants of the city. Whether seafood is favorable to a great group of residents should be evaluated. Maybe people just order seafood randomly and building a specialized seafood restaurant becomes a failure in business because of few customers.
Secondly, the author argues that families in the Bay City are occupied and buy with their jobs that they do not eat at home a lot. However, he does not bring concrete evidence to support his claim. How many two-income families are in the Bay City? The fact that both parents are working does not imply that they have enough money to eat out in a specialized seafood restaurant that may have high prices. If the author seeks to reach at the conclusion that two-income families pay attention to healthy food, he should provide the results of the nationwide study to prove that how many families follow this trend of healthy diet. Having a minority of families with the mentioned feature, the new business cannot rely on them to be a regular customer.
Let us assume that the new Captain Seafood restaurant has its own customers and is going to be a popular place. How the author supports the popularity of the restaurant? What are the plans of the owners regarding the location, prices, decoration, and quality of the seafood? The author has neglected numerous factors that affect the popularity of the restaurant. The only 30 percent increase in the consumption of seafood does not guarantee the prosperity of a specialized restaurant. Complementary factors such as location and easy access of the restaurant are from utmost importance. Furthermore, the prices of the food should commensurate with the quality to gain customers.
To summarize, although the prediction may appear logical at the first sight, it is rife with fallacious suppositions. To further support the prediction, the author is required to ponder over the above-mentioned questions and elucidate the ambiguities. Otherwise the argument is refutable and the business may not only confront vicissitudes, it may incur huge loss.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
the arguments are in the wrong way.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 531 350
No. of Characters: 2646 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.8 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.983 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.842 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.423 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.395 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.462 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 515, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...mined how many restaurants of the city. Whether seafood is favorable to a great group o...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 253, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...uestions and elucidate the ambiguities. Otherwise the argument is refutable and the busin...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2703.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 531.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09039548023 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94048966631 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450094161959 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 839.7 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.2161636988 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.961538462 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4230769231 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.76923076923 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307081411619 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0884262536412 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0957006556074 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177065732452 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126078426991 0.0628817314937 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.