Please rate my AWA
[#permalink]
02 Oct 2013, 07:32
Question:
"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:
In the above argument, the author claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This claim is based on the facts that Heart's Delight started as a store selling organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's but now sell a wide selection of high fat cheeses. Another premise for the conclusion is that the owners of a vegetarian restaurant are making a modest living, but the owners of the House of Beef are millionaires.
On examining the argument, certain assumptions appear to be flawed. These flaws have been mentioned in the ensuing paragraphs. The author must address these flaws in order to make his argument convincing.
Firstly, the author assumes that because Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, has started selling high fat variety of cheese, people have stopped regulating their intake of fatty cheeses over the last 10 years. This is a wrong assumption. The author cannot assume a change in dietary patterns based on changes in products found in one store. It is possible that Heart's Delight is the only store that sells cheese and other stores do not sell various varieties of cheese because there is a low demand for the product.
Further, the author implies that the intake of fatty cheeses has increased over the decade. While making this claim, the author seems to have discounted an important assumption that the increase in consumption could have been due to an increase in population. Therefore, this could mean that people still regulate their intake of fatty cheese.
Secondly, the author compares the financial position of a vegetarian restaurant with that of a store selling beef. The author identifies that the owners of the beef store have become millionaires, but the owners of the vegetarian restaurant still make a modest living. Based on this comparison, the author concludes that people have stopped regulating their intake of fatty meat. This conclusion is ridiculous, to say the least. The author forgets to consider the source of the earnings of the owners of the beef store. For instance, the owner of the beef store could have made all their millions in the real estate market and their beef business is barely breaking even. This scenario would negate the author’s argument.
Further, it may be possible that the vegetarian restaurant is run by a group of people who are not interested in making money. They probably are earning millions from their restaurant and donating bulk of the money to charity, keeping just enough money to lead a modest life.
Therefore, the author conclusion appears to be a little far fetched based on the facts he has presented. However, the author could strengthen his argument and make the same more convincing by addressing the issues mentioned in the critique above.
To conclude, the argument, in its current form, is poorly supported with facts and has various assumptions that are flawed.