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 f

The author presents makes a case for a new seafood restaurants in the Bay CIty. The author concludes that the restaurant will be popular and also profitable. However the conclusion is based on faulty logic and unsound assumptions. Also the argument is wanting in terms of evidences. Due to this reasons the author's argument falls apart.

Firstly the author states that a sales study has indicated a rise of 30 percent in sea food consumption. However the author use vague terms that adds an element of ambiguity in the argument. The 30 percent could be based on any figure. For eg , previously if the consumption was low say only 50 than the 30 percent increase would be result in 65 which is negligible. Moreover the rise could also be corollary of the increase in population. Thus the author should have included further evidences that validated the study or other surveys that also illustrate the surge .

Next the author mentions that there are no seafood speciality restaurants. However this does not mean the no other restaurants that serves seafood. There could have been a raft of high quality seafood restaurants that people frequent. Hence in order to validate his argument, the author should evaluate various evidences that explicitly demonstrates the fact that there are no dinners that serve seafood.

Afterwards the authors divulges that a nationwide study has shown that two-income families eat fewer home-cooked meals than they did before, also they are more solicitous about their health. Here the author makes several unwarranted assumptions. First he assumes that the general case can be accurately applied to an specific instance. The residents of the Bay City could differ from the national denizens. Perhaps the Bay City locals are more inclined towards the home-cooked meals rather than the restaurant meals. Even if the study can be unerringly applicable to the Bay City, the study results are too ambiguous to draw specific conclusion. The vagueness could be removed, if the author could provide evidence - specific data that could give the precise decrease in the amount of home-cooked meals the families eat . Also just because the people are more concerned about their health doesn't necessary mean that they are adapting more salubrious eating habits. Hence to make the argument more tenable, the author has to cite evidences to ratify the claim.

Lastly the author concludes that new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood would be popular and profitable. However this conclusion is not supported by any evidences and hence is ill-founded. Thus the lack of evidences to support the claim and numerous flawed assumptions leads to an erroneous conclusion.