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

In the preceding statement, the author claims that increasing seafood demand and the absence of present supply, plus the phenomenon that the families prefer less home-made meals and healthy dishes, would make the opening of a seafood specialized restaurant very profitable. While it may be true that filling this market gap would be a sharp move, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Thus the argument is flawed and untenable.

The primary issue with the author’s reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author’s these is that seafood dishes are well regarded by Bay City’s population and he relies on the recent sales study. It is not clear, however, the validity of these surveys. The fact that seafood consumption has increased during recent years does not mean that it will remain that way. Besides, the study does not explain the reason of demand’s rise. It may be caused by the higher price of the other popular dishes, which could later decrease and thus affect seafood consumption. The author’s premises, the basis of his argument, lack legitimate evidential support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author concludes too hastily that opening a restaurant specialized in seafood will be attract consumers since there is no currently operating one. It is possible that citizens have become interested in seafood only as a companion dish, so a restaurant entirely specialized would not have positive reviews. It is also possible that vast majority of these patrons would remain loyal to their favorite restaurant. Thus lacking evidence that these patrons would be willing to try the new restaurant the argument’s claim that a new seafood specialized restaurant would be profitable is dubious.

Ultimately, the author presents a relation between healthy food and popularity of seafood dishes. However, what is the evidence of these assumption? The nationwide study mentioned by the author only implies that families are more concerned about the nutritional values if the meals they consume, but it does not connote that seafood is regarded as healthy meals. It seems unreasonable to guess what are the citizen’s preferences without turning to any references. They could like meat or vegetable dishes better. Lacking firm evidence, the author cannot justify his argument.

In sum, the author makes a few faulty assumptions and fails to take into account some contradicting scenarios that call into question the accuracy of his argument. To strengthen it, the author must show that the demand for seafood dishes is sufficient to support a new seafood specialized restaurant. To better assess this statement, a reader would need more information about the consumption of seafood in Bay City.