Happy to help!
The argument concludes that people, in general, are less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were 10 years ago. The argument cites couple of instances to derive this conclusion. The argument in it's current form and with the instances quoted is flawed and based on assumptions whose validity can be questioned without much effort.
This intro could be improved a tad. In the beginning you just need to get started and get past the intro, so I would recommend tightening up your intro. Your first sentence is strong and powerful!
But then the second sentence doesn't do much and the ideas could be combined with the last sentence: "However, the conclusion is based on flawed logic and assumptions that would need to be corrected before this would be considered a convincing argument."
Firstly, the argument compares the general population of 2 different decades on the regulation of their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses without providing any relevant data or information on which this comparison is drawn.
The argument has many pitfalls as it makes major assumptions. For example, the general population of the previous decade may be consuming red meat and fatty cheeses without any regulation and in high quantities. The population of the current decade may be much more aware about the negatives of high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and thus would be regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses manifolds compared to general people of the previous decade. Additionally, the argument assumes that more people buying red meat and fatty cheeses this decade implies that the people of current decade are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.
This paragraph is good, and on it's way to being great. One thing you need to do is return to the main conclusion of the argument and the end of the paragraph and explain explicitly how the flaw you just pointed out makes the conclusion doubtable. Always return to the conclusion at the end of your body paragraph and talk about how it affects the conclusion. What particular part of the conclusion is weakened and why.
Also, let's look at one of your sentences: "The population of the current decade may be much more aware of
the negatives of the
high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses,
and thus would
be regulating regulate
their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses
compared to the
general people of the previous decade."
As you can see from my corrections, I am adding some articles and also taking out awkward phrasing. You should aim to save some time towards the end of writing to go back and make these types of changes and edits.
Secondly, the argument quotes an example of Heart's Delight store. The store now also sells red meat and fatty cheeses along with organic fruits and vegetables. The argument tries to justify it's conclusion based on this example but the argument ignores the possibility of the store increasing it's domain of products and inturn catering to a wider audience which consists of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian population. Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumtion of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so. Moreover, the store may be appealing to a select minority who do not regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and not the people in general.
You hit the mark perfectly in this sentence: "Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so." I think this is the best sentence in the paragraph, and you should get it much faster. This gets at the heart of the issue and really should be the focus of this paragraph.
Thirdly, another example is quoted in the argument to support it's conclusion. Good earth cafe may be making a modest living when compared to the new House of Beef but this in no way implies that people, in general, are less concious about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. There may be a scenario where the Beef House may have greate range of services than the Good Earth Cafe. AFor example, the Beef House may be providing home delivery services which caters to larger audience while Good Earth Cafe does not. Also, there may be a case where the owners of Good Earth cafe are less ambitious and happy with the current operation of their restaurant and may not want to extend their operations which in turn might lead of increased sales and profit. Thus, citing this example to support the conclusion is like comparing apples and oranges.
Your intro sentence to this paragraph is fairly weak and doesn't provide much information. Your next sentence is much stronger and should be the point of focus.
In conclusion, the argument makes
derives a conclusion about people in general about why they regulate regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on various assumptions. These assumptions are open to attacks of reasoning and thus make the argument weak and seriously flawed. The argument could have provided relevant data to compare people's views regarding their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses over the decade to support it's claim. Moreover, much more relevant examples may have been much more beneficial in supporting and justifying the currently flawed argument's conclusion.
Conclusion is generally good and sums everything up nicely.
Overall I think that you are doing a great job of picking apart the argument and identifying the fatal flaws. But you'll need to work on editing and revising at the end to really boost your score.
Hope this helps!
Magoosh Test Prep