023 A recent sales study indicated that consumptio

[sow1225]

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

New Bay City seafood restaurant would be quite popular and profitable seems to be the conclusion at first glance. However, it is based on the platform with no clear evidence. Lets look into the assumptions presented for the argument.

 

First, it was presumed that the consumption of seafood dishes has increased over the past five years in Bay City. The argument is weakened by the fact that all the elements pertaining to the increase was never addressed. Does the increase mean that the residents of Bay City never had any seafood dishes before? Did the awareness about seafood increase lately? To have a positive hold on the argument, the author has to cite strong and valid reasons for the increase in the consumption of seafood.

 

Second, assumption that, there are no currently seafood operating city restaurants in Bay City. It could be that, residents of Bay City are not great seafood lovers. Even they want to have it once in a while, it could be that they want to have it as part of their routine meal. Hence, the author has to thoroughly investigate and consider the reasons for not having seafood restaurant in Bay City all along and thus the argument would be strengthened.

 

Third, it was assumed that nation wide study indicates two-income families choose to eat less at home, at the same time more concerned about eating healthily. Infact, if they are more concerned, they may never turn to a restaurant for food, even if it consumes their time. If they do go for a restaurant, they may not prefer seafood. For example, if two-income family has kids who prefer eat prefer to French fries with sauce, parents may prefer McDonalds over seafood restaurant and have burger there along with French fries. It could save some bucks at the same time satisfy their kids. The argument would be strengthened if the author provides statiscal evidence, considering elements like, two-income families eating habits, their incomes, and number of kids in each family including their food habits.

 

Finally, to open a new seafood restaurant in Bay City specializing in seafood should be evaluated thoroughly by considering the increase in consumption of seafood, eating habits and interests of the Bay City residents, furthermore, their income and number of kids of the two-income families.

 

[LokeshRay]

 

Originally posted by sow1225

 

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

 

Hi AMIGORO...can u review my essay..

 

here it is:

 

At first glance, the results of the study seem to suggest that sea-food is gaining in popularity. Further on, it seems logical to take advantage of this growing popularity, and open up a new Bay City restaurant specialzing in sea food. Furthermore, this argument is provided impetus by the fact that most of the families in the area are two income families which eat most of their meals in restaurants. Yet, this argument is not entirely valid and is open to debate.

 

The argument states that consumption at sea food has increased by thirty percent. But, one has to consider the percentage of the profits constituted by sea food. If sea food constitutes an insignificant part of the restaurant's food consumption and income, then an increase of thirty percent is not a reason enough to assume that popularity of sea food is on the rise. For example, let us suppose that the restaurant serves five hundred people in a day. Furthermore, let us assume that only ten people in a day choose sea food. An increase of thirty percent means that now, thirteen people consume sea food in a day. But the number thirteen is very small as compared to the remaining four hundred and eighty seven people who do not consume sea food. Even if sea food is consumed by a majority of patrons, it is unknown whether an increase of thirty percent is enough to warrant opening of a new sea food restaurant. For example, if a typical restaurant serves five hundred people in a day out of which 300 people consume sea food. A thirty percent increase would mean that now 390 people consume sea food. For the new restaurant to sustain itself let us assume that it would require five hundred patrons per day. Now, one can see that an icrease of 30 percent means 90 more people than before, consuming food. Ninety is very small as compared to five hundred and is not a valid argument to conclude that the new sea food restaurant will have five hundred customers per day. It could happen that the new restaurant wont have enough customers and the sea food prepared in the morning would never get finished before closing time. This would lead to wastage of food and losses. Thus, the 30 percent increase is not reason enough to open a new sea food restaurant.

 

It is stated that the majority of families are two income families which have most of their meals in a restaurant. But, it has never been mentioned anywhere that these families would choose sea food. It is impossible to conclude that these families will definitely choose sea food over pizzas, hamburgers, french fries and other snacks. Perhaps, if a survery would have indicated high preference for sea food, then there would have been enough data to make such an assumpition. Opening a new restaurant, is a huge investment and such a decision must be based on sound reasoning and valid data. Thus, without data accumulated by surverys and questionnaires, one cannot make an assumption about families in the Bay City area liking sea food.

 

The decision to open a new sea food restaurant must be taken only after analysing the significance of the thiry percent increase in sea food consumption. Without data about the people's preference, one cannot assume that a sea food restaurant will be able to sustain itself. Any new restaurant is a huge investment. Such a risk must be taken only after weighing the pros and cons.

[nsoonhui]

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

In the above the author makes a few implicit assumptions. I shall examine them one by one.

 

First, the author assumes that increase of consumption is one of the reason a new seafood restaurant should be set up. It might be possible that existing restaurant can cope with increasing demand of seafood. So a new seafood restaurant might not be that profitable at all, since many might still visit normal restaurant for seafood consumption.

 

The author seems to believe that having a mass potential costumers is the only key to sucess, this is not so. Besides that, restaurant should possess some good qualities like good food, cheap price and nice location. Without these, business will not be profitable and popular.

 

Besides that, selling seafood alone might not be sufficient to support a restaurant. This will depends on costumer's number. Even though consumption of seafood has achieved high growth rate, the number of costumers might still not be enough to support a seafood restaurant.

 

Besides that, it is unclear whether the citizens will embrace the seafood restaurant,.they might like to eat seafood in a normal restaurant, but this cannot be taken as a guarantee that they will like to eat seafood in seafood restaurant. Family might go out as a whole to eat dinner together, but only children that may prefer seafood and the adults may prefer other food. This type of family will never visit seafood restaurant which sells nothing except seafood.

 

Author seems to imply that majority of the two income family will like to eat healthy, so they will prefer seafood restaurant. This is hilarious, seafood contains high colestriol and it is not healthy at all. Any health conscious person will know that eating seafood is increasing chances of getting heart attack, strokes and other diseases. They will not visit seafood restaurant for healthy food.

 

Besides that, aritcle said that "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 eating healthily." Ok, this is at nation level, but can this applied to Bay City? Bay City's life may be less stressful, their citizens may have a shorter job time, so they can have time to cook food for themselves. This will mean that Bay City families may eat for home-cook meals than other parts of the nation.

[ccube]

Please help me comment on this essay,:)

 

Bay City should not speciailize in seafood, since seafood may not increase its profits. Other reasons can increase the seafood consumption too. Besides, the operating city restaurants have their own reasons reasons to avoid speicalizing seafood. Also, the nationwide study has no information about how those faimilies interested in seafood.

 

A lot of factors can affect the seafood consumption. If the population of the city increased a lot within past five years, then the increases of Bay City is not surprising at all. The Bay City people may eat more and more food of any kind within the past five years, and there is no doubt Bay City can have satisifying profits. Other food can be very profitable too, Bay City should take them into account together with seafood.

 

The operating city restaurants may have other reasons stopping them to speicalize seafood. Those restaurants should not specialize seafood if they have other even more profitable dishes. There is no seafood specialized restaurants do not implies the seafood consumption is good; it may indeed imply the opposite.

 

As analysed thoroughly, the nationwide study are independent to seafood consumption. As the 2-income families are working longer and need a stronger body to keep them working well, they consume more food of any kind to keep them energetic and healthy. The favor of seafood is not proved at all.

 

To sum, the increases of seafood consumption does not imply the citizens like seafood more than other kind of food. There exists no seafood restaurant make us doubt about the eagerness of seafood of the people. In addition, the study did not help to prove how people love seafood at all. Therefore, Bay City better recondier their specialization of seafood.

[matek]

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

-----------

 

The conclusion that a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable seems to be very convincble, yet the argument has some inaccurate points to lead to the final conclusion.

 

Arccoding to the argument, the need of a new, specilizing restaurant is due to the 30 percent increase in seafood consumption in the last 5 years, and the claim that families in Bay City eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eating healthily, futhermore this claim is based on a more general research, a nationwide reseach. Those are the main logical flaws on the arguments.

 

Firstly, the 30 percent increase on a production does not mean that the need of a new bussiness emerges. As long as the increase in the amount of seafood consumption is not so large that the old restaurants could still serve, the claim that a new restarant should be opened is not the consequence.

 

Secondly, when we apply a general conclusion, especially the one based on statistical data, to a more specific area, we also should take in account the valid of this study on this specific area. The nationwide reseach sometimes is not true for Bay City. For some reasons, example the quality of restaurants, or the customs the people here, they don't go to restaurants as sequentially as the people elsewhere.

 

To conclude I would like to give a suggestion that we need more essential information, like the increase of the consumption in number, the serving ability of the current restaurants, and the eating-out customs and trends of the local residents in order to give an exact conclusion of the need to open a new specializing restaurant.

[sonali]

023 A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

Citing the increase in consumption of seafood dishes the author concludes that building a new Bay City restaurant specialized in seafood would be popular and thus would be profitable. However, after careful scrutiny, the argument seems to be unconvincing on several grounds.

 

Firstly, on the assumption that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City increased by thirty percent the author concludes that restaurant expertise in making seafood would be popular as well as profitable. But, thirty percent increase in seafood consumption at Bay City restaurant does not necessarily indicate a sufficient demand for a new Bay City restaurant serving seafood dishes only. The thirty percent increase is quite possible, especially considering that there are currently no seafood restaurants in Bay City. Lacking the evidence that significant number of city’s restaurant patrons are ordering seafood, the argument’s conclusion that a new seafood restaurant would be popular and profitable is unjustified.

 

Secondly, the author also cites that in most of families in Bay City husband and wife both went out for work so would prefer to eat outside. But, the nationwide study showing the trends of two income families of dinning out and eating healthily does not necessarily apply to Bay City. In Bay City the trend might be opposite. Even if these families prefer to eat outside, it is not necessary that they will enjoy the seafood from new Bay City restaurant. They might be loyal to their favorite old restaurant. Thus the argument’s claim that a new seafood restaurant would be popular is dubious.

 

 

Finally, even if Bay City families prefer eating in new seafood restaurant, the restaurant would not be necessarily profitable as a result. As we know, profit depends on both expense and revenue. Thus, no one can deny the possibility that the restaurant’s cost of obtaining high quality, healthful seafood, or of promoting the new restaurant might end up it unprofitable despite of its popularity. Without considering about this factor the argument’s conclusion seems to be invalid.

 

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence and study of people’s liking in seafood. Also, the clear evidence should be provided that Bay City also follows the trends as cited in nationwide study and these trends will continue in future in Bay City. Moreover, for believing that the new restaurant will be profitable as well as popular, detailed estimation of expenses and revenue should be provided.

 

 

[lanis]

[bounce]

 

I need your help, thanks.

 

[heartbeat]

 

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

At first glance, the advice that a new restaurant specializing in seafood should be build in the Bay City seems reasonable, for the argue presents several evidences to show that the seafood will have large market in the city. However, further scrutiny will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

 

Firstly, the recent sales study says little about how popular the people in Bay City are with the seafood. For one thing, the reliability of the result if open to doubt. It just show that consumption of seafood dishes in the restaurants increased over the past five years, but it fail to imply the total percentage of seafood in the whole food supply and any situation at a prior time in the study. Perhaps five years before, there was no seafood in the city and so it increased fast, and may be in the circumstance that more people eat out and so the imply of other food have increased just the same, if not more, as the seafood. Moreover, even if one accept the study reslut, it does not mean that a special seafood restaurant is demanded. No evidence show that people eat seafood without other things, maybe the seafood is just an addition of other major dishes in their daily dinners.

 

Secondly, the nationwide study cannot support that the special seafood restaurant will have a big market in the two-income families. Can the natiowide study really indicate the situation in Bay City? It is possible that the study was limited in some bigger cities and people there lead a higher living level therefore more likely to eat outside. People in different places have different eating mode and we can not generalize it hasty. In addition, even though the two-income familieas in Bay City are willing to eat out also, the argue fail to link these people with seafood just on the fact that they express more concern about eating healthily. No evidence show that seafood is more health than other food, and on contra, if not washed carefully, the seafood is more likely to lead illness. Eating habit is possibly relevant to one's taste, interest, not just depended the health standards, and the arguer fails to imply that these families like the seafood more.

 

Last but not least, the auther ignores several relevant factors worth considering the profit of the new special seafood restaurant. While though there is no other special seafood restaurant, the other restaurants are big competitors and they are more popular in the citizens, who are most likely to eat in a restaurant familiar with. If the new restaurant do not have any better service and supply some more varieties of seafood, it will not attract people. Moreover, the profit stands not only in the earning but also the cost. It is pretty possible that the cost of varieties of seafood are much high and finnaly the profit is not so excited. And the author also should supply the concrete arrangement on the operating of a new restaurant such as the plan of management and other relevant rules.

 

To sum up, the argument is not pwesuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the author must present more fact to support that a special seafood is demanded in Bay City, at least a suvey to indicate the lotal people's attitude towards the plan. To ensure that the restaurant will bring attrctive profit, we need more information about the concrete plan in operating such a restaurant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rupali0415]

A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in 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 eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

 

 

 

At first glance it looks like Bat City restaurant spacializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable bacause seafood is healthier.

But there are many flaws in this statement.First it is not clear that how many restaurant are there in Bay City.And what is the population of Bay City.It is difficult to give the exact figure but there should be some approximate figure of restaurants and population.Then and then only we can figure out how many peoples are going to restaurant.Study of only two or three restaurant can not give the idea of taste of people in Bay City.

Secondly it is stated that 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 .But it is also stated that they express more concern about eating healthily. If it so then such families will prefer to cook in home instead of going outside and eating junk food.It is good to eat outside if you are really tired or not feeling well.But it is not good to eat outside frequently just because you income is more.People like to eat in restaurant because it is tasty but generally the food is very spicy .They add more oil,cheeze ,colour to improve the taste.And the families who concerns about there health must be aware of this fact.

No doubt that the sea food is healthier but eating fresh vegetables is also good for health .It is stated that Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Then these restaurants must be having veg and nonveg menu on its card.People might be eating vegetarian food in the restaurant.If popularity of restaurant that specialize in seafood is increasing then we can conclude that people like seafood.

And if people really like seafood then why there is not restaurant specialize in sea food opened yet in Bay City?

Its very difficult to predict from given statement that people like seafood and the restaurant will be quite popular and profitable.