Writing Feedback / New seafood restaurant: profit or no profit [5]

question: 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 questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.

response: Stating the evidence that the consumption of seafood dishes have increased by 30 percent in the past 5 years and the two-income families eat significantly fewer homecooked meals, the author has concluded that the new restaurant specializing the seafood will be popular and profitable.The conclusion is flawed to some extent that it ignores some significant facts.

Firstly, the statistics indicate the consumption of seafood has increased by 30 percent. Though it is a considerable increase but it is not significant to guarantee the profits of the new restaurant, because there are already other restaurants that serve seafood. People are generally cautious about going to a new restaurant especially in the beginning which might prove to be deterrent in profits of the new restaurant.

Secondly, as the author states that nationwide study shows that two-income families have become more concerned about the healthful eating, this itself weakens the chances of the new restaurant becoming popular since the food prepared in restaurants is generally not considered as healthful.

The reason being there is lack of hygiene in some way or the other in restaurants. Even if the restaurant is all hygienic, there are many alternatives to sea food which are more nutritious and people would like to order that instead of sea food.

Thirdly, the author has applied the generalised study of the whole nation (regarding the two-income families) to the BayCity residents. There is a chance that people of Bay City might have less no of two-income families as compared to other places in the country or the taste and preferences of the inhabitants is different from the generalised study. This might decrease the popularity of the Seafood restaurant.

As the author has mentioned that till date, there is no specialized restaurant in seafood even though there is 30 percent rise in demand of sea food, this creates a doubt that there might be some other reasons which affects the popularity and profit of such restaurants and that's why people have not set up such restaurants. Had these two factors been the only contributing factor in the popularity and profit of the seafood restaurant, such restaurant would have come up by now.

Moreover, members of a family have a high chance of having varied tastes and preferences, so they would like to go to some place where they can order according to tastes of everyone and not just seafood. This might provide some hindrance in the popularity of the new restaurant.

Keeping all the above mentioned facts , it can be stated that the author's conclusion can be strengthened if he provides some strong evidence in support of it.

Writing Feedback / The author's conclusion about woven baskets is based on the assumptions that are not very strong [5]

Q: Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the BrimRiver from Palea. The BrimRiver is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river ?the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument

Answer:

The author's conclusion that the woven baskets were not unique to the ancient Paliens is based on the assumptions that are not very strong and thus the conclusion supported is subject to change depending on the possibility of assumptions. The assumption that the deep broad Brim River was a deterrent to the Paliens to move to the other side of the prehistoric village does not take into account the possibility of the emergence of river much after the Paleans dissapeared. The other possibility is that the River could have originated several years before the Paleans and might have dried by that time so that Palens could easily travel across to the other area. Besides river , there could have been many other hindrances between the two regions , for example , a mountain or some valley which later changed to flat land.

Secondly, the appearance of a single basket in Lithos does not strong support the conclusion that the people of Lithos also wove those distinctive patterned baskets. The single basket could have been transported from Palean land to that region some years later by some other means of transport.

It is plausible that the basket might have been taken away by the river to the other side.
These likelihoods again weakens the conclusion by the author.

There could have been some alternate means of transport that Palends used to go across the river which again weakens the conclusion.Being self sufficient in terms of nuts , berries in does not confirm the fact that Paleans need not cross the river to go to the Lithos. They might have trade relations or they might have gone there for some other reason ,eg to travel to some other place.

Since the discovery of a single basket many years later proved to be denouncing the earlier accepted truth that woven baskets were unique to the Paleans, some progress in the further years may lead to discovery of boats or some other means of transport which will again contradict the presented conlusion and the author might like to revisit his statement.

Moreover, the discovery of a single basket ,in no way strengthens the conclusion that the Lithos used to weave those baskets. A few more number of baskets could have in some way supported the statement.

So , in a nutshell, combining all the loopholes in stating the conclusion of the argument, it can be said that there is a flaw in drawing the conclusion of the argument. The argument can be strengthened if it can be substantiated with sufficient assumptions which are valid.