AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph has a clear focus, and the ideas flow logically from one to another. The writer effectively uses transition words and phrases to connect different points and arguments, making the essay easy to follow.
Word structure: 5/6
The word structure is generally well-handled, with varied sentence lengths and structures. There are a few minor instances where sentence structures could be further diversified to enhance readability and engagement.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5/6
The essay follows a well-structured paragraph format, with each paragraph addressing a specific point or piece of evidence. The writer maintains a clear topic sentence for each paragraph, followed by supporting details and analysis. Overall, the paragraph formation is effective in presenting the ideas coherently.
Language and Grammar: 5/6
The language and grammar used in the essay are mostly strong, with only a few minor errors and awkward phrasings. The writer effectively conveys their ideas using clear and concise language, though some sentences could benefit from further refinement for clarity.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/6
The vocabulary and word expression used in the essay are appropriate and demonstrate the writer's ability to convey their arguments effectively. However, a few instances of more sophisticated vocabulary could enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall, the essay provides a well-structured and coherent analysis of the argument presented in the magazine article. The writer effectively identifies the flaws in the evidence provided and offers thoughtful explanations for why the argument is weak. With some minor improvements in language and sentence structure, the essay could be further strengthened. The essay received an overall score of 5 - 5.5 out of 6.
LAE5683 wrote:
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Your Answer:
In the article, the author asserts that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat & fatty cheeses. The author grounds this assumption on facts about stores in the food services industry. These facts do not show any relationship over time or provide the appropriate context to merit full consideration. Overall, the author does not gather enough evidence to support the broad generalization the he or she is attempting to make, leading to an overall weak argument.
Firstly, the author references a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, while pointing out that they also sell a wide selection of fatty cheeses. The author fails to mention whether or not Heart's Delight has always sold these cheeses. This shortcoming prevents the author from proving the relationship about people's intake of the items in question over time. The reader is also unaware how much the fatty cheeses are responsible for the total revenue for the company and how that may have changed overtime. Therefore, this evidence is not sufficient towards the overall argument.
Secondly, the author points out that the owners of a vegetarian restaurant next door to Heart's Delight are making only a modest living. In this example, the sample size is one; therefore, it is insufficient as supporting evidence. One example fails to show an overall correlation for the industry, as there may be confounding factors to the lack of success. Additionally, similar the point made regarding Heart's Delight, this does not show any relationship over time. It is possible that the argument would be further weakened if the reason for Good Earth Cafe's owners' modest living is due to a high competition of vegetarian restaurants which are spurred on by high demand. This fact renders the author's argument untennable.
Thirdly, the author compares the owners of Good Earth Cafe to the owners of House of Beef, stating that the House of Beef owners' are millionaires. The author does not address how the owners became millionaires. Are the owners of wealthy origin, or was their wealth created solely through the Company's success? Is their newfound success representative of an overall trend, or will their sales slow down as the novelty of a new restaurant fades? Business trends do not always fully clarify what the overall population practices, as House of Beef could be very popular with a niche group and still be profitable.
In conclusion, although the facts presented in the article appear to support the initial argument by providing examples of the trend of increasing intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, there are logical flaws in extrapolating these facts to the population as a whole over the last decade. The strongest support the author could supply would be time-bound data regarding these establishments popularity and revenue. Without such data, the assumptions made by the author cannot be held as reliable.