In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago abou

Hello,

Can you rate my essay for the argument below?

Thanks in advance, highly appreciate your precious time invested in the reply.


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."



My response:

The author's argument is flawed as it fails to support whether people is really not concerned with regulating their intake of meat and fatty cheese or not.

At the first glance, the author assumes that Heart's Delight and the Good Earth Cafe stores sales performance compared to that of the new House of Beef represents the general trend of people's regulation of red meet and fatty cheeses intake compared to more healthy food. The author should have provided general statistics on nationwide intake of red meat and fatty cheeses compared to more organic food.

Another drawback in the author's argument, is that the Heart's Delight store already offers fatty cheese, accordingly, even though the store sells products other than organic healthy food, the store does not have good sales figures which infer that the store does not sell that much due to other issues not solely related to the fact that it sells organic food.

Lastly, The author does not report Heart's Delight and the Good Earth Cafe stores sales performance now compared to a decade ago, even if their sales are generally fewer than House of Beef store sales, a positive increasing trend in sales would have shown that people buy more organic food than before.

As a conclusion, the author didn't provide sound proofs that people are actually not concerned with regulating their red meat and fatty cheese intake. The author neglected comparing current to old trends for healthy food sales and only used 3 stores performance to build his argument.

Good Luck

Thanks a lot for your prompt response.

I deleted the other article and put it in the right place.

Please follow AWA forum rules while posting in the same, read the rules in the link below

https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html

PS: Post your evaluation request again according to the rules.

Thank you!

I apologize for this mistake, as per the instructions I removed the article from this thread and put it in the right place.

Thanks.

The argument concludes that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. To support this conclusion, the argument claims that while the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living, the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider 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 flawed and unconvincing.

First, the argument readily assumes that people consume more fatty cheese now than a decade ago because Heart's Delight, a store started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, also started selling a wide selection of cheese made with high butterfat content. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. To illustrate, the store owner might be doing great business with the fruits and vegetables, and might have wanted to expand his business to cheese products. Further, if it were true that the Heart's Delight store acquired and accommodated the neighboring cheese store, which was running out of business due to lack of sufficient customers, the argument would be significantly weakened. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that more people are buying cheese with high butterfat content everywhere now than a decade ago.

Second, the argument claims that the owners of the House of Beef restaurant are millionaires because they get more customers than the Good Earth Cafe or the Heart's Delight. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of customers for House of Beef and income of their owners. For instance, the owners of the House of Beef restaurant might be from a wealthy family, or they might be good investors, investing in the stock or real estate market as a side business. Clearly, the assumption that the owners of the beef restaurant are rich because of the higher number of customers, and therefore, people in general are not concerned about their intake of red meat need not be true. If the argument had provided evidence that the owners of House of Beef became millionaires only by selling red meat and that the beef restaurant attracts more customers than the vegetarian restaurant, then it would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, has the author investigated other sources of income for the owners of the beef restaurant? Also, has the author considered the per capita consumption of red meat and fatty cheese nationwide ? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is weak and unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the relevant factors, such as secondary income for the owners of the beef restaurant and nationwide consumption of red meat and fatty cheese. In order to assess the merits of the claim that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi - looking for a review of my AWA response, below.

Prompt:
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."

Response:

The trends and lifestyles magazine article that focuses on health concerns related to red meat and fatty cheese intake contains significant flaws in justifying its argument. Two broad errors employed include both selective examples that fit the narrative of the argument and a lack of context to support the evidence. Three examples will be given of such errors. These examples include a lack of comparison between time periods as well as a narrow example provided with the Heart's Delight, and a causation error made with the House of Beef. Overall, more information is needed about the examples provided, as well as statistics representing a larger sample of the population to make such claims. This information as well as the errors and exmaples mentioned above will be elaborated on.

The first error identified related to the Heart's Delight example provided. The author claims that walking into the store today and seeing many different cheeses is indicative of reduced concern of citizens of their fatty cheese intake. A major flaw in this reasoning is that no context is provided as to what this store sold in the 1960's. What if the store had a "wide selection of cheeses" back then, as well? This would break the cheese aspect author's argument alone. This was a notable example of using selective information to argue a point, but lacking any context.

The second error also occurred in the Heart's Delight example. The author indicates that the wide selection of cheeses means people are not as concerned about intake regulation. However, without any evidence to support the decreased in concern, this argument carries little weight. For example, it is no secret that people in general are far more aware of the damage that smoking cigarettes does to the body, and that rates of smoking have decreased over recent years. However, walk into any convienance store today and you will still find a wide selection of cigarettes. This wide selection does not mean people are less concerned about smoking. Clearly more evidence is needed to be able to infer that a wide selection of cheeses in one store means people are generally less concerned. This was a significant assumption made.

The final example pertains to the House of Beef example provided by the author. They state that the owners of the restaurant are millionaires, and therefore beef consumption must be higher. Unfortunately, no information or evidence as to how the owners became rich is provided; the author could be assuming correlation means causation. Were they millionaires before opening the House of Beef? As a result of opening the House of Beef? This is critical information needed to come to this conclusion.

As outlined, providing minimal evidence and applying findings from a small sample to the broader population created serious flaws in the author's argument. Therefore, changes to the argument are needed. Firstly, the author needs to provide more context around the Heart's Delight, and what the store used to sell in the 1960's. This would confirm whether or not this small example is even relevant. Secondly, the author needs to clarify how the House of Beef owners became millionaires, rather than just stating it as a fact. Finally, and most importantly, the evidence used in the argument represents a major sampling concern. The author should seek data from a larger sample of people to proof that fatty cheese and meat consumption has actually increased.

In conclusion, the argument provided had a number of critical flaws that would make most readers question its validity. The author provided minimal evidence to support his or her claims, used selective examples that may not represent a significant portion of the population, and provided little context to the examples used. Options for improving this argument were provided, and are needed, for this argument to be taken seriously.

DO NOT POST YOUR SAME ESSAY TWICE AT ANY PLACE IN THE FORUM

Good Luck

Dear Community , I would appreciate if you could take a look at my essay. It’s is the first one I wrote and I am not satisfied as I have seen the others posted here.

The argument that people take less care about their read meat and fatty cheese intake is not very well organized as it omits important facts for evaluation its correctness.

The author misinterprets the connection between the success of restaurants to the consumption behavior of people. The magazine article does not mention, nor analyze the meat eating routine of the general public. It can also be that the nationwide meat and fatty cheese consume declined within recent years as the awareness for healthy food has risen. As people a more cautious about what they eat, the preserve eating meat as a special event outside of their normal food consumption behavior at home. therefore, people choose a meat place for dinner outside home want to enjoy this cheating event.

This can also explain why the vegetarian restaurant does not exhibit higher demand from the customer side. For the argument to be validated, the author would need to emphasize more on the consumption behavior and overall spending of people on read meat and fatty cheese rather than relating it to the success of restaurants.

Another aspect regarding red meat and fatty cheese consumption that is completely omitted from the paragraph, is the possibility that newer medical research has revealed other causes of unhealthy human nutrition. It can be case that the consumption of read meat and fatty cheese are less adverse to the human body compared to other substances, example sugar. As the author does not present any form of research evidence the claim made can not be validated.

Finally the articles lacks the quotation of a representative number of restaurants. By just mentioning that the owners of one specific meat restaurant are very successful does not mean that the majority of meat serving restaurants are better off than vegetarian only restaurants. The examples seem to be purposefully picked to give the impression that all vegetarian restaurants are performing bad while all meat serving restaurants are doing good.


Overall the articles fails to related its claim to any form of proof, wrongly draws conclusions on the wrong basis and omits medical proof of its claims. Therefore it is poorly structured and presented.

Posted from my mobile device

Welcome to GMAT Club!



Good Luck

Could you please evaluate my essay? Thank you in advance!

Prompt:

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

Response:

The author of the article claims that people are not as concerned as they were 10 years ago when it comes to regulating their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption. This conclusion is based on two instances of stores. Heart's Delight, a store that was selling healthy food in the 1960's, is selling high-fat cheeses and, while the owners of Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living compared with House of Beef's owners who are millionaires. The argument, as stated, is unconvincing because it relies solely on two instances to draw a conclusion about human eating diet habits in general, and because the same two instances are based on assumptions which are not clearly supported by the evidence provided.

First of all, the author implies that Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, has added high fat cheeses within the last decade. However, this assumption is not supported by any evidence within the argument. On the contrary, with the information provided one can also assume that Heart's Delight added high butterfat cheeses two or three decades ago, or even earlier than it added its healthy options. If the store did not add the high fat cheeses within the last decade, then by no means does it institute an example that indicates an increase in fatty cheeses in people's diet.

In addition, the argument states that House of Beef owners are millionairs whereas Good Earth Cafe owners make a modest living, in order to support that stores that serve unhealthy food options are more successful, and, therefore, that people are less concerned about their intake of unhealthy food. Nevertheless, taking as granted that House of Beef indeed serves red meat, no information supports the notion that its owners are millionaires thanks to the profit gained by the store. House of Beef owners could have inherited their fortune or collected it from other business activities. Even if their store is more profitable than Good Earth Cafe, the type of food is not the only factor that determines the profitability of a store. Factors such as quality of food and service, price ranges and venue are equally important.

Finally, the author's line of reasoning is relies on analogy. To illustrate, he uses two examples to draw a conclusion regarding the whole population. The examples could, at best, provide indication about the eating habits of the residents the stores are located. To rely on them to make a conclusion about people in general is very far stretch and renders the argument unconvincing.

In summary, the argument is flawed because it relies on an analogy and weak examples to make its point valid. The author should provide more context about the examples provided; but, most importantly, he should provide representative studies that correspond to the whole population and which compare the consumption levels of red meat and fatty cheeses with those one decade earlier, if he wishes to strengthen his conclusion.

Good Luck

AWA Evaluation Request

Dear Sajjad1994, it would be very helpful if you could please grade my AWA attempt.

Prompt:
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.

My Response :

The argument claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and displays a distorted view of the situation. It also fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion also makes several assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Due to this, the argument has several flaws and is very unconvincing.

First, the argument readily assumes that the only reason that the owners of the Good Earth Café are still making a modest living and not billions like the owners of the new House of Beef across the street is that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This statement is a stretch as there could be several other reasons that contribute to this disparity in the financial status of the two cafés. For instance, it’s quite possible that recent studies have shown that the health benefits of red meats and fatty cheeses when consumed in moderation outweigh those of not including them in the diet at all. It is also possible that the Good Earth Café hasn’t changed much in it’s décor or menu, leading to the customers getting bored. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the reasons behind the Good Earth Café not doing as well as the House of Beef.

Second, the argument claims that one will find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content in Heart's Delight as a reason to substantiate the claim that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This is again an unwarranted claim as the article does not demonstrate the correlation between the availability of a wide range of cheeses and people’s concern about the regulation of their intake of fatty cheeses. To illustrate, it is quite possible that the cheese section of Heart's Delight is not contributing to the revenue as much as healthier alternatives are. It is also probable that the only reason that this section was introduced, was to lure the customers to spend more.
If the article stated the clear relation between the introduction of this section and people’s concern on their health, it would have been more compelling. It could’ve been further strengthened if the customer demand for such a section is what caused Heart's Delight to introduce it.

Finally, the article concludes that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Stated in this way, it is unclear how the author arrived at this conclusion without any evidence. If this conclusion is based on the sole reason that the sale of red meat and fatty cheeses has increased, then it fails to consider other key factors such as the increase in population, change in palette, new discoveries on health benefits, the eating habits of the people. Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that this is more of wishful thinking than substantive evidence. Due to this, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In conclusion, the article is has several flaws and is unconvincing due to the reasons stated above. It could have been strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the evidence and assumptions based on which he/she arrived at the conclusion. In the evaluation of the merit of a situation , it is imperative to have all the information on the key factors. In this case, the change in population from 1660’s to the present, the reasons behind the success of the House of Beef, and modest earnings of the Good Earth Café and the cause of introduction and success of the cheese section in Heart's Delight. Without this information, the argument is very unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi Sajjad1994

Please rate my AWA.

The above argument presents an analysis regarding a general trend in people with regards to consumption of red meat and fatty cheese. The referance drawn in order to support the view is flawed since it do not point to a probabale reason or backs it up with scientific research data, rather it concentrates more on the success or failure of certain business.

Firstly, the author refers to Hearth's delight store which sells wide slection of cheese made with high butterfat content. This in no way supports the authors claim regarding the change in habits of the population in general. Rather, it just provides information regarding a wide range of new products that are introduced in the market.

Secondly, the author compares the success of two competing business and comes to a conclusion that since the owners of the old vegetarian cafe is still making a modest living and owners of the new restuarent that came up across the streei is a millionare, it reflects a change in habits of people in general. This comparison is superficial and the author do not dig into the other probable causes that might have lead to the success of the new restaurent rather than change in people's behaviours. There can be a reasoning drawn regarding the business practices that the new restaurent flollows and the old vegetarian restuarent dosen't.

Finally, the author dose not focus on any scientific or well researched data regarding the same. There might be scienfitic journals available where approprite information regarding the changes in peoples behavious at current times are evaluated and conclusion drawn. There can be reasons other than behaviourial changes that may impact the change in lifestyle of people in general.

Due to the above lack of approprite referances, the concusion drawn by the author is not approprite and needs further research. The author should consult people in the field of behaviourial reseach to discuss further and draw concusion with good backing of scientific data. This way the authors reasoning can be easily justified.

A lot of spelling mistakes are there such as: referance, probabale, slection, restuarent etc. I have pointed out a few but the essay is full or spelling errors.

Good Luck