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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The conclusion drawn regarding the new Captain Seafood restuarant that specializes in sea food regarding its polularity and profitablity seems far-fetched and based on very weak assumptions. There are many evidence and doubts that seriously challange the validity of the conclusion.
The author mentions about the recent sales study that indicates the increment of 30 percent in consumption of seafood dishes in Bay city during past five years. However, the author mentions nothing about the population rise trend in the same period. Since the five year time is a very significant time duration, there is every possibility that the population might have increases substantially which resulted in the increased consumption of the sea food along with other consumption. The evidence of the population being constant over past five years is essential to validate the conclusion drawn by the author. Else, the increment in sea food consumption would rather be a natural effect of population rise and current sea food restuarants would be sufficient to provide service to the customers. Moreover, the data related to the occupancy of the existing restuarants is essential to evaluate either there is necessity of new sea food restuarant in the town or not.
Also, although the study mentions that the majority of the families eat significantly low home-cooked food, there is a special mention about the health concern. Since it is universally accepted fact that the restuarant food are not too beneficial for health, the people might still opt for some other healthier choice rather than zooming into the new restuarant. There is no any mention about the sanitation level, hospitality and service quality of the New Captain Seafood restuarant which further casts doubts on whether the people might opt for the new restuarant or go for some other healtheir options, which further weakens the conclusion. Maybe the new restuarant would not be good enough or healthy enough to attract the health conscious people of the city and operate below the expected profits. In a sense, it also sounds a bit impractical for the entire family going into a theme restuarant for dinner or lunch. It is because the family group usually expect variety and extended menu for dinner or lunch so that they can share among themselves. This might not be the ideal case for themed restuarant like New Captain Seafood restuarant because of their limited food choice based on sea.
Thus, presence of these several doubts makes the conclusion drawn regarding the profitibility and popularity of the New Captain Seafood restuarant very weak and it can not stand firm until it provide enough support to negate those doubts.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2225 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.115 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.697 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.915 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.358 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 373, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...oming into the new restuarant. There is no any mention about the sanitation level,...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2260.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19540229885 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74400919662 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489655172414 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 702.9 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6011976 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.25 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1875 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146424785209 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570870325184 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108841582799 0.0701772020484 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813784995285 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0731643717502 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.