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.
In this argument, the author states that the newly opened seafood restaurant should be popular and profitable. This conclusion is reached based on recent studies which indicate an increase in the consumption of seafood. However, this argument is flawed for several reasons.
Starting with the sales study conducted in Bay City restaurants. The details of the study are vague. If the study involved only a few customers in a few Bay City restaurants, then it is impossible to know for sure if the majority of the city’s residents’ like for seafood. For all we know, the survey may have been filled by people who are seafood lovers. It is also possible the survey was filled by tourists who don’t actually live in Bay City. Hence, the validity of the supposed 30% increase in seafood consumption is questionable.
Likewise, the author assumes that since most families in the city have two streams of income and they prefer to eat out, they would opt for seafood dishes. While this assumption may be true for some families, we just can’t say for sure. What if most of the families prefer other dishes than seafood? This would seriously undermine the author’s position.
The author made mention of two-income families’ concern for healthy eating. This suggest the author considers seafood healthy. Now, this may be true, but we wouldn’t know where each family stands on this. Some may consider it healthy, some may not. Thus, if only a handful of these families consider seafood healthy, then it undermines the author’s views that the new seafood restaurant will be popular and profitable.
In conclusion, the author’s evidences on the profitability and popularity of Captain Seafood restaurant do not hold because they are based on unwarranted assumptions. For this argument to be properly evaluated to show the viability of Captain Seafood, the author has to provide more insightful sales study or surveys that covers the seafood preferences of not just two-income families across Bay City.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 330 350
No. of Characters: 1618 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.262 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.903 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.577 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.766 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...e survey may have been filled by people who are seafood lovers. It is also possible the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, however, if, likewise, may, so, then, thus, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 328.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16768292683 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73374644875 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.536585365854 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.5331086078 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.75 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.232752866973 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.079985884574 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698784065547 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143161983716 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622302805895 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.