Have exam the day after tomorrow! Would appreciate your feedback!

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 Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."

The argument claims that people now do not care about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as much as they did a decade ago. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, manipulates facts, and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that because people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red mead, the owners of the new House of Beef became millionaires. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of successful business men who also own restaurants that are not neccessarily their main source of income. For example, a famous TV star in South Korea owns a restaurant in the center of Seoul, however, his main source of income is his job as a TV show host. Similarly, the owners of House of Beef could already be millionaires before they opened the restaurant. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the restaurant made the owners of House of Beef millionaires.

Second, the argument claims that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living. It thus suggests that this is yet another reason that people nowadays do not care about regulating their diet. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the healthy food and revenue growth. In fact, the argument does not even draw a parallel. One can assume that the reason why the owners of that old vegetarian restaurant do not make much money is because the quality of their food is bad. If the argument had provided the evidence that people do not want to spend their money at the vegetarian restaurant because they do not like healthy food, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument concludes that compared to a decade ago, people now are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. From this point it is not at all clear how did the author draw such conclusions. What if people did not care about their diet a decado ago as well? In fact, it is stated that the Good Earth Cafe is still making a modest living, implying that they were not earning much profit before too. In addition, the Heart's Delight, that started selling organic foods in the 1960's, could successfully start selling fatty cheeses a decade ago. Without supporting evidence and examples of other vegetarian restaurants that actually lost their revenue over a decade, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this claim has no legs to stand on.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts, including statistics on how many people were concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago compared to now. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.