Joined: 04 Sep 2013
, given: 2
Please rate my awa, thanks [#permalink]
22 Sep 2013, 01:47
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles:
“In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and
fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart’s Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain
flours in the 1960’s, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door,
the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of
the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author argues that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. In support of this claim, the author gives two explanations. First, a store that in the 1960's sold only organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours, now sells also a lot of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Secondly, the owners of an old vegetarian restaurant are making a modest living, while the owners of a near beef restaurant are millionaires. The argument, as it stands, is not convincig for several reasons.
First, the author assumes that today you can find fatty cheeses in all of old vegetarian stores. Unfortunately, the only evidence provided by the author is an example of one single store that started selling vegetarian products and that now sells also fatty cheeses. It is likely that this example is not representative of the general trend of vegetarian stores. The author doesn't provide any other reasons to support the conclusion that people are eating more red meat and fatty cheeses than they do in the past. If, for example, the majority of other vegetarian stores have not changed their policy, the author's conclusion is seriously undermined.
In addition, the author assumes that all vegetarian restaurant are making modest profits, while restaurant cooking beef have reached great results. Once again, the assumption is based on a single example, that could likely not be representative of other restaurants. For example, it might be that Good Earth Café owners are less able to manage a restaurant than owners of the House of Beef; an alternative explanation could be that the owners of the House of Beef were already millionaires before starting their new activity. If this is the case, the author assumption is not worth.
In conclusion, the author's argument is a weak argument. The author makes only a general claim based on two examples and doesn't give any other evidence in support of its conclusion. To strengthen its conclusion, the author would have to show that the two examples are representative of the general trend of vegetarian stores and restaurants; to better evaluate the argument, it would be needed further evidence about the lifestyle in recent years.
Thank you very much!