Please help to grade/analyse the AWA below:

I wrote this on GMAC Starter Kit free test. Please help to assess.

**********
Argument :
"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 millionares"

**********


The argument claims that in general, people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Stated in this way, the arguments fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which, it could have been evaluated on. The conclusion is a leap of faith that selling beef is directly related to people concerning about their health. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that a store named heart delight would sell product that will be the only products beneficial for our health and they have little to no long term effects from consuming these products. This statement is a stretch and it is not substantiated in anyway. There are numerous examples to understand this perspective, for instance, what if long term use of these organic fruit and vegetables, whole-grain flours, wide cheese varieties with high butterfat content will be good for heart and have no long term effects. Also, these may not be the best nutritional alternative to people who are from construction/labour class, gymnast and other high enduring sports activity. The author fails to clarify wether the product from Heart's Delight will intended as the replacement of high fatty and nutrional value that beef has. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the specific targetted audience for this discussion and the nutrient content they would like to replace it with, making it dubvious to believe.

Second, The argument claims that a vegetarian restaurant, Good Earth Cafe, have modest earning because of the people preference of beef over vegetarian food. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation with type of food and health benefits explicitly. Infact it did not even draw parallel with earning modestly with vegetarian item and being millionare by selling beef. The author would have been more convincing if it clearly stated the reason for Good earth cafe to not improvise the menu with low fatty food having almost equal nutritional value products.

Finally, The argument concludes that since beef restaurant owner are millionare, people in general are not concerned with their health. They must regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. If the author would have clearly stated below questions: What nutritional value are required and for which age group? What are the adverse affect of specifically having beef over prolonged duration? Why people are not tending to organic and dairy product if the repurcussion of fatty cheese and red meat are so substantial? As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing because of aforementioned reasons.It could have been considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.