In this argument, the author predicts that the new Captain Seafood Restaurant might be popular in Bay City. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants increased 30% in the past 5 years, but there is no specialty seafood restaurant now. More, a nationwide study shows that people in this country are more likely to eat out. That strengthens author’s conclusion. The information listed shows it is a great opportunity to open a seafood restaurant in this city. However, without proving that people in Bay City really need or want a seafood restaurant, this argument fails to be persuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the author assumes that the Captain Restaurant will be popular in Bay City because of the increasing seafood dished consumption. In some aspects, rising consumption might reflect the popularity of goods, but the situation is not unique. It cannot prove that residents of Bay City prefer seafood dishes, so the seafood restaurant may not be popular here. The increase in people’s income or the lower price of seafood dishes might also strengthen the consumption of seafood dishes. If the evidence that people in Bay City are definitely enjoy seafood dishes can be provided, this conclusion will be significantly strengthened.

Additionally, it is improper to predict that the lack of seafood restaurants in Bay City will help Captain Seafood Restaurant to be popular and profitable. Going to seafood restaurants is not the only way to enjoy seafood in Bay City. For example, if other restaurants could provide enough seafood that meets people’s needs at a proper price, or the citizens here prefer to cook seafood by themselves, there is no reason to have seafood in specific seafood restaurants. In a word, we cannot make sure that the Captain Seafood restaurant will be popular and profitable.

Finally, we still need to prove the evidence that residents of Bay City eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than a decade ago, as the nationwide study shows. But it is inappropriate to conclude the local phenomenon by a universality conclusion. The situation in Bay City might be quite different from nationwide. The author needs to prove that with a new survey in Bay City to strengthen this conclusion.

In short, we cannot be persuaded by the evidence above. The author should provide more evidence to make sure the decision is reliable, then avoid unnecessary losses.

A small request… Would you please help to correct some specific mistakes in this article if there are still many errors in it? I found that I’m weak in recognizing and correcting grammatical errors ;( Just correct some iconic mistakes and let me have a try to fix the rest ones.

Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks a lot!

In this argument, the arguer predicts that the demand for heating oil will increase, then concludes that Consolidated Industries is worth investing in because its major business operation is the retail sale of home heating oil. To justify this conclusion, the arguer points out that homes in the northeastern United States have traditionally used oil as the major fuel for heating. Then the arguer indicates that local weather forecasters predict the next several years will be cold based on the weather situation last year. The arguer also mentions that many homes were built in this region during the last year. However, this argument fails to be persuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the arguer infers that the demand for heating oil will increase in this region because burning oil is the traditional way to get warm here. In some aspects, we can predict a general situation through tradition. However, residents here might find a better source of heating. Some clean energies are more efficient and produce less pollution while burning oil might produce gases that are unfriendly to the environment. People might switch to a healthier and cheaper fuel instead of continuing to use oil for heating. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide more reliable evidence and rule out possible alternative explanations. If the arguer can convince that burning oil is the only proper way to get warm in this region, the argument will be significantly strengthened.

Additionally, it is improper to assume without substantiation that the weather of this region will be cold in the next several years, which might increase the demand for heating oil. In this case, we may wonder whether the weather forecast is dependable and whether the prediction based on the weather situation of last year is dependable. For example, weather forecasts are often inaccurate in our lives because the weather is always changing. Along this line, the weather forecasts should base on real-time information, but not the past, and have real-time updates. Thus, the author should supply more convincing evidence to confirm that the weather situation in the future will indeed increase the demand for heating oil.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are reasonable, the argument merely relies on the assumption that people will live in the new homes built during the last year, then the increase in resident numbers will cause the demand for heating oil to rise. But we have not informed any persuasive and professional evidence. However, people might not decide to live in it because of the economic situation, weather situation, or the traffic conditions here. That means the demand for heating oil might not increase, and investment in Consolidated Industries may be an unsuccessful decision. If so, anyone would be reluctant to accept the arguer’s recommendation.

To sum up, many obvious flaws need to be marshaled before this investment. Any impetuous implementation would be unlikely to have the desired consequences.