Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
6th AWA. Experts please grade! GMAT in less that a week!! [#permalink]
20 Oct 2013, 06:36
Kindly grade my essay. Your feedback is much valuable and highly appreciate. Thanks and kudos in advance!
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.
In the passage above, it is argued by the author that in general people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The author states the earnings of three stores viz. Heart’s Delight, Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef as evidence to support his/her claim. However, on a deeper analysis, it becomes apparent that it becomes apparent that certain relevant and important aspects have not been taken into account, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
One such flaw is the author’s assumption that what stands true, with reference to the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses, for these three stores could be generalized for the entire population. This statement is a stretch as these three stores are in the same locality and perhaps the residents of this locality have different dietary tastes and preferences as compared to the other localities in that country. The argument could have been much clearer if the author had provided data about the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses of a broader sample of the population.
The author claims that in general people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses because of the items being sold in stires such as Heart’s Delight and House of Beef. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as fails to convey about the buying and consumption behaviour of customers. For example, Heart’s Delight, in addition to organic fruits and vegetable and whole-grain flours, also sells a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. The author has not provided any data regarding the sales of these cheeses. It is possible that customers buy organic fruits and vegetables instead of the cheeses. Similarly, it is perhaps the same with House of Beef. The author has not conveyed anything about the food being offered at the House of Beef. It is possible that even if the customers visit the House of Beef, they order from the Salad Bar rather than from the beef menu.
The author also wrongly concludes that the financial position the owners of a particular restaurant is an indicator that in general people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This is a faulty assumption as the financial position of the owners could depend on several other factors such as income from other businesses, money inherited from ancestors, money won in lucky draw etc. For example, it is possible that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires because their ancestors had been prosperous and wealthy as they enjoyed monopoly for some business they ran. The author has failed to establish any correlation between the revenue generated from the sale of red meat and fatty cheeses and the financial potion of the owners. Without any concrete reasoning to substantiate the claim it appears that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than justified evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentions all the relevant factors that decide the change in concerns of people with regards to consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses. In order to assess the merit of a particular situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this case, valid data taking into account a more comprehensive sample of customers, buying and consumption behaviour of customers and revenue generated by stores from the sale of red meat and fatty cheeses. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Re: 6th AWA. Experts please grade! GMAT in less that a week!! [#permalink]
23 Oct 2013, 04:03
You do a nice job in this essay -- I would probably give it a 4.5 or a 5. There are two things that need work:
1. You are not accurately summarizing the argument in the intro; earnings of one store is only one premise supporting the main claim.
2. You should be addressing the point in your first body paragraph about overgeneralization in your last body paragraph because it implies you accept as true the premises you later go on to dispute. You should first challenge the assumption that a health food store selling cheese means what the author claims and that the wealth of one restaurant owner means people like beef. Then as a transition into your third body paragraph you can say: even if the above assumptions were true, the argument still makes a problematic generalization based on a few businesses in a specific part of the country.