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.
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.
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.
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.
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.