Search the Community

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. Words Limit 450-600 words Introduction: The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarliy, the argument is based on a sales study, that the consumption of sea food in bay city has increased rendering the main Point, which is the authenticity of this sales study, and they have not Provided any evidence to support the authenticity of the sales study. Body: Fallacy 1: The argument fails to provide any evidence about the authenticity of the sales study. For one, they haven’t provided any criteria on how they had choosed residents, they might be talking to minority of people who like sea food. This lack of evidence could question the legitimacy of this case study. Moreover, the reason for there is no sea food restaurants are in Bay city area is because majority of the people in Bay city might don’t like sea food. Strengthening the argument: Had the argument provided any information regarding the criteria how they have choosed residents, Even then, the argument would have to further prove that, the majority of people in Bay city like Sea food. Fallacy 2: 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. This argument also leaves many unanswered questions. Even if the Two income families nationwide significantly eat at fewer house meals, doesn’t necessarily mean that the bay city will also not like Home meals. Nonetheless, they are also assuming that the two income families will also likely to eat seafood, when they will go to restaurants. Fallacy 3: Therefore, the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable. Finally, the argument claims without warrant that what held 5 years ago will hold true today for Captain Food restaurant. Even if we assume that Two income families would likely to eat outside, the argument is still lacking because it does not provide information to show that the general economic climate will not change. Due to rising inflation they might would not be able to afford Seafood Conclusion: Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that People of bay city would likely to buy Seafood from Captain restaurant.

Prompt: Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Essay: Introduction Providing health, safety, education, and opportunity to show your full potential to everyone in society is the Government's job. It is also the Government's responsibility to identify special children so that later on, they will use these talents to help our society to get ahead of our rival countries. Body Paragraph In the rapidly changing and competitive world, we must have the best people for the relevant job. We can go ahead if we find people with unique talents, nurture them according to their talents, and hire them for jobs that best suit their talent so they can later help society by keeping their country ahead of their rival countries. America is doing it very well. They have their dogs worldwide to sniff those talents and get them to live in their country. For this purpose, they have created Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, in which more than 70% of people are non-Americans. Similarly, After the war of independence of 1857, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan realized that the Muslims needed Leaders with special talents, so they built Aligarh university, which later gave Muslims Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Muhammad Iqbal. Counterexample There is a concern also that it would have an economic burden on Government's Financial budget, and it could be used for infrastructure or the health of ordinary kids. Well, in the beginning stages, You can say for a little while, but studies have proved that 90% of kids who have been trained give 100 times more than you have invested. Conclusion Instead of letting other countries snatch them and use them against us, we must identify them and help them nurture them so they can do something for the betterment of their country.

Please evaluate the following argument task based on GRE AWA scale. ---------------------- QUESTION : In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fish - ing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. ----------------------------- RESPONSE : The government of Mason City should probably allot more money to riverside recreations, but the given argument is not strong enough to compel the move. The argument is full of holes and assumptions that need to be dealt with in order to make a cogent argument. The author states that water sports rank top among the resident’s favorite recreational activities, solely based on surveys. However, there is no clarity in the scope and depth of the surveys. For example, the survey could have been conducted among the youth of the city, who might prefer water sports to other activities. Such might not be the case for the rest of the population. Also, the survey could have consisted only a few options under the ‘favorite recreation’ section, thus limiting the possible choices for the residents. We don’t know about the credibility of the survey. To make a convincing case, the surveys should represent the whole of the city’s residents. Since it clearly fails to do so, the argument cannot be backed by the surveys. Additionally, the author states that there have been numerous complaints about the poor quality of the river, and cleaning it would surely increase its usage. However, there is no clarity about the source of those complaints. The people who complained could be the small population that has interest in water sports. Or it could be a small group of environmentalists. Thus, cleaning the river need not necessarily increase its usage significantly. Adding to the unwarranted assumptions, the author also states that the cleaning of the Mason River would surely lead to its increased usage for water sports. This has major hole in the fact that a clean river alone is not enough for water sports. The residents need to have the time, facility, and equipment for sports like swimming, boating, etc.; considering that they are interested in water sports in the first place. It could also be possible that the weather of the city is not suitable for such events, a factor that is not taken into consideration at all by the argument. Further, if the river’s smell was caused by the dumping of wastes from nearby factories, it could have killed most of the fauna and flora of the river, rendering it unusable for fishing, which is mentioned in the argument as one of the favorite activities. Keeping the river clean and beautiful should be a priority for the people, as well as the government of Mason City, but the given argument fails to be convincing enough to compel the government to allot more money for riverside activities.

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal. "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring." Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument. The argument tries to state the relation between “the birth order and its effect on one’s level of stimulation.” It stands weakened primarily on the assumptions of the number of monkeys or humans taken up by the study and some vague claims made. First, the author does not take into consideration if the number of subjects examined gives way to a generalised view. The study considered ‘eighteen’ monkeys and performed the study on them. It does not even talk of the effects possible due to regional differences. Also it does not clearly tell the group of humans or pregnant women picked up for the study. Just because the study worked on a certain group does not generalise it for the others. Second, the assumed cause and effect may not be the only such relation. The eighteen monkeys considered could belong to a certain area and probably the observations are a regional characteristic. Also the situations taken up as checks for level of stimulation in an individual may be limited and not accurate. Moreover there could have been other reasons behind increased cortisal levels and not just the birth order. Maybe the first-time pregnant mother could have other hormonal or individual reasons accounting for more cortisal or could have been observed at a certain time, other than the other mothers, at which the level was high which might be the general phenomena but not known. Furthermore the argument uses vague language and terms and does not throw clear light on them with definitive facts and figures. It says “stimulating situations” and gives an example. It is possible that different indivuals react differently according to what is more or less stimulationg to them. Were the situations which were picked up for the study accountable and been tested upon before or not? Such questions need to be answered disntinctly. Clearly the argument relies heavily on unwarranted assumptions and ignorance of any of these would lead to a weakened or even invalid argument. The conclusion may be true but can not be proven so with the premises stated and the assumptions made. To strengthen the argument, the author can explicitly address to the direct assumptions including definitive facts and figures and probably take up a larger and varied group of subjects for diverse and more genuine observations.

"SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision." Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. My response: The given argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Is the argument prompt, there are some unwarranted assumptions which might not be true at all, therefore making the conclusion inappropriate. The decision to mode SuperCrop headquarters to Corporateville from Middlesburg is not valid based on the information of this argument because of these assumptions. First, the passage assumes that sudden surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, which is not a valid assumption. There are many unanswered questions regarding the assumption. For example, sudden surge might cause from the cheap land price of Corporateville, which not an indication of superior place to live. Living condition and home owners interest are not the same thing. Moreover, It might be a place with lots of industries, or even in a place where it doesn’t has any parks or schools for kids, or many more. As a result, it lessens the claim of superior place to live based on the only information provided in the argument. Had the argument provided any information about life security or social condition of Corporateville, or even the information about pollutions, it might have been a valid assumption. Second, the SuperCorp's employees prefer to live in an area that is not urban, which was known through a survey, is not a valid assumption. It might have surveyed on a few employees, or the survey questions wasn't related to this. For example, if the company had run the survey on a day where most of its employees were in vacation, this survey gives false interpretations. Again, survey questions are important, because SuperCorps employees might not be interested to move a place where social facilities are not enough. Moreover, Corporateville is an urban area, is neither mentioned nor indicated nowhere in this argument. What if Corporateville is in fact an urban area, which seriously weakens this assumption? So, based on this little information, survey and assuming Corporteville as not an urban area, moving headquarters is not a valid decision. Third, argument assumes that, as the taxes are low in Corporateville, it is a safe place to work. Lower tax has nothing to do with safety of the workplace. Again, there is no warranty that lower taxes will help SuperCorp in its business. For example, Supercorp might be in a business with daily commodities, and taxes might be lower in only house prices, which ultimately can be a disaster for SuperCorp. Again, safety of the workplace is not properly defined, which is necessary for its employees. However, without proper information about the safety and lower taxes, it is not a valid assumption to move SuperCorp headquarters to Corporateville. The argument was based on some faulty reasoning, and there a decision is made, which is to be invalid from different perspectives. So, the arguments decision to move headquarters is invalid. Please commant on my Argument task so that I can improve my writing style. Thanks in advance :)

The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper. "Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. ******************************************************************** The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. It assumes what is true for Green Highway is also true for nearby Blue Highway. It also assumes that last year’s condition is unchanged until now. Moreover, it assumes the residents who are keen bicyclists will actually use a bicycle lane during rush hour. Thus, these assumptions if prove to be unwarranted the whole argument falls apart. The argument assumes that Blue Highway is similar to nearby Green Highway. Even if these two highways are close to each other, there may be significant differences such as may be Green Highway does not connects suburbs and city center rather it connects downtown to national highway where probability of accidents are higher. Highway plan and structure of Green Highway may be faulty. Had the argument taken into account that the two highways both between suburb and downtown, even then it must be prove that the structure and planning of these two highways are similar. Thus, if these two highways are not similar the argument falls apart. Another assumption is that what happened last years will also likely to happen in future. Even if these two highways are similar, may be last year the climate condition was worse than usual and there was excessive snow, rain or heat etc. which lead to increased traffic jams. Moreover, may be the city held some kind of world cup championship and many people came from outside the city which lead to more traffic. So it must be proved that last year’s condition was similar to typical condition, otherwise this argument won’t hold true. Finally, it assumes that residents who are keen bicyclists will actually use a bicycle lane and use bicycle for their commute. May be these residents use bicycle for their recreational activities or after work they may be exhaust and lack energy for their return home during rush hour. So it must be prove that they will actually willing to use bicycle in their everyday commute. If this assumption prove to be false then the argument will not be compelling. Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions it fails to make a convincing case that, a bicycle lane will reduce the rush-hour traffic jam in Blue Highway.

I need all the help I can get, so if anyone is willing to help, it is greatly appreciated! The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner. "Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. The writer of this letter, who proposes prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza to decrease trash and vandalism and to increase business to its previous level, proposes an interesting argument. However, there are many questions that must be answered in order to decide whether or not to move forward with a corrective plan of action. While there could be a correlation between the factors that are brought to light, there could also be other plausible explanations as to why business has decreased in Central Plaza. An important question to ask is if things have changed over time, meaning has the economy taken a turn for the worse? This could explain why business has decreased in Central Plaza. If people are facing hardships they are less likely to spend money frivolously or on things they “want” instead of “need.” Store popularity could change over time as well—stores that were once popular in the past may not be popular now or in the future. People may have found new stores that they like to shop at rather than ones that have been around for a few years. The author of the letter also uses vague terminology, such as “increased dramatically” and “return business to its previous level”. It would be important to know how much skateboarding, trash, and vandalism have increased over the past two years and what the previously high levels of business were and what the levels are now to see how much business has actually dropped. Additionally, the writer implies that throughout the plaza the amount of skateboarders, vandalism, and litter has increased. However, it is never explicitly stated that the skateboarders have caused the litter and the vandalism, just that both have increased. So how do we know that if the city prohibits skateboarding that vandalism will decreased and business will increase? We need to know who or what is causing the increase in vandalism and litter and if skateboarding is really the problem. Maybe there aren’t enough trashcans for all the litter or the trashcans aren’t being emptied enough? Asking shoppers and store owners would be a good start to figuring out why business is decreasing and what they perceive to be the key problems. A cause and effect relationship cannot be assumed, because there are many assumptions made without proper evidence to back them up. Any owner wants their business to flourish, but in order to get to the root of the problem we must obtain information that will help make a well informed and valid decision. These are some of the questions that must be answered in order to make a proper decision as to whether or not to create a plan of action to help Central Plaza increase in business back to its previous levels.