Arg-39
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.
【满分范文赏析】
This argument's conclusion is that a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood would be both popular and profitable. To justify this conclusion the argument indicates that seafood consumption in Bay City's restaurants has risen by 30% during the last five years. The argument also indicates that most Bay City families are two-income families. Citing a national survey, the argument indicates that two-income families eat out more often, express more concern about eating healthily than they did ten years ago and would therefore lead to a new Bay City restaurant becoming popular and profitable. That argument fails to be persuasive as the assumptions upon which it is based do not link with the author’s conclusion.
【本段结构】
本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文的结论具有说服力。
【本段功能】
作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即在Bay城市专营海鲜的餐厅将会受到人们的欢迎并有利可图。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，包括Bay城市的海鲜食物消费量上升了，在Bay城市最多的家庭类型是双收入家庭，而根据一项国家调查，这样的双收入家庭比以前更关心他们的饮食质量。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。
Firstly, a 30% increase in the sales of seafood at Bay City restaurants does not adequately represent the demand necessary to justify the opening of a new restaurant. While a 30% is certainly significant, the actual volume might be too low to generate revenue. Lacking evidence that a significant number of the city's restaurant patrons are ordering seafood, the argument's conclusion that a new seafood restaurant would be popular and profitable is unfounded.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——样本类错误。原文假设和五年前相比，Bay城市的海鲜食物消费数量的确显著的上升了。但是，这一假设忽视了样本统计当中的一个重要因素，就是百分比并不能充分的代表实际数量。因此，这个假设不能成立，那么原文的结论就不能成立。
Secondly, even if the current demand is driving a profit in the other restaurants, the argument assumes that Bay City's restaurant patrons who order seafood would frequent the new restaurant. Maybe they wouldn’t favor a change in venue. And it is further possible that they prefer to eat in restaurants that are not specializing in seafood since they want to take some other food besides seafood. Lacking evidence that these patrons would be willing to try the new restaurant the argument's claim that a new seafood restaurant would be popular isn’t founded.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第二个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设因为人们爱吃海鲜食物，他们一定喜欢去海鲜专营餐厅进餐。但事实上这样的因果关系并不成立，因为可能存在其他的因素导致当地的人们不会选择海鲜专营餐厅。因此在没有考虑到这些额外因素的情况下，原文的这个假设也是不合理的。
Thirdly, the nationwide study indicating that two-income families exhibit the tendency towards dining out and eating healthily does not indicate that this trend will extend to a Bay City restaurant. This is to say that perhaps the two-income families polled may equate Bay City with dining out but not necessarily eating healthy. In this case, Bay City could not depend on their patronage.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文假设全国性调查能够体现出Bay城市当地居民的真实想法。但是，在没有更多的证据下，这样的从整体样本推断个体样本的假设是不成立的。因此，原文并不能证明这样的海鲜专营餐厅能够受到当地人们的欢迎。
Fourth, even if most of Bay City's families are following the nationwide trends indicated above, it is unreasonable to infer that these families will necessarily patronize a new seafood restaurant in Bay City. Bay City may already boast a variety of competitive health-oriented restaurants. For that matter, perhaps Bay City's existing restaurants are already responding to the trends by providing both more healthy alternatives and more seafood dishes. Moreover, perhaps either or both of these trends will soon reverse themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would compromise the argument.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第四个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第四段，本段攻击原文所犯的第四个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设既然Bay当地居民喜欢去外边餐厅消费健康的食物，那么海鲜专营餐厅会受到人们的欢迎。但是这样的因果关系是不成立的，毕竟该假设并没有考虑到竞争对手的存在会对新加入者带来的负面影响。所以，在没有考虑这些因素的情况下，原文的结论并不成立。
Finally, even if Bay City families flock to the new seafood restaurant, the restaurant would not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus it is entirely possible that the restaurant's costs of obtaining high-quality, healthful seafood, or of promoting the new restaurant, might render it unprofitable despite its popularity. Without a study, the argument seems a bit premature.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第五个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第五段，本段攻击原文所犯的第五个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设如果当地人们的确喜欢这个海鲜专营餐厅，那么它一定能够盈利。但是，由于在商业竞争当中，盈利问题要涉及到很多因素，比如成本和收入，这样的因果关系并不一定能成立。所以，在没有考虑这些因素的情况下，原文的结论并不成立。
As it stands, the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must demonstrate that the demand among restaurant patrons for seafood is sufficient to justify the opening of a new seafood restaurant. The argument must also demonstrate that the restaurants would be a consideration of Bay City families. The author could also strengthen the argument by providing reliable evidence that Bay City reflects the nationwide trends cited, and that these trends will continue in the foreseeable future in Bay City.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即C—S的结尾结构。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。
【本段功能】
段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：作者必须证明Bay城市的当地居民会考虑去海鲜专营餐厅消费，这样的餐厅能够和当地人们的饮食习惯相符合，并且这样的趋势会在今后继续。
【满分要素剖析】
【语言表达】
本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是
1) This argument's conclusion is that…(标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。)To justify this conclusion the argument indicates that… The argument also indicates that… Citing a national survey, the argument indicates that… That argument fails to be persuasive as the assumptions upon which it is based do not link with the author’s conclusion.(标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—A—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
2) Firstly, a 30% increase in the sales of… does not adequately represent the demand necessary to justify… While a 30% is certainly significant, the actual volume might be too low to generate revenue. Lacking evidence that… the argument's conclusion that… is unfounded…(标志性的百分比和实际数量的差异导致的样本类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
3) Fourth, even if… it is unreasonable to infer that these families will necessarily… For that matter, perhaps… Moreover, perhaps… Any of these scenarios, if true, would compromise the argument.(标志性的存在其他因素的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
4) Finally, even if… the restaurant would not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus it is entirely possible that… (标志性的在商业盈利中因为存在其他因素导致因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
【逻辑结构】
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3、4、5—结尾段的逻辑体系：
(开头段)This argument's conclusion is that… To justify this conclusion the argument indicates that…
(正文段1)Firstly…
(正文段2)Secondly, even if…
(正文段3)Thirdly, the nationwide study indicating that …
(正文段4)Fourth, even if…
(正文段5)Finally, even if…
(结尾段)As it stands, the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must demonstrate that…
特别注意的是，在文章第二段、第四段和第五段攻击完相应假设后，在他们接下来的段落中，分别使用了“Even if”来引导让步，即“Secondly, even if the current demand is driving a profit in the other restaurants… Fourth, even if most of Bay City's families are following the nationwide trends indicated above… Finally, even if Bay City families flock to the new seafood restaurant…”，这样的让步能够非常严谨的引出对接下来逻辑错误的攻击，体现了文章严密的整体逻辑分析思路。
