Hi All,
My GMAT exam is another 3 days, please rate my AWA that I typed during my GMAT Prep 2. Please give your valuable feedbacks that will guide me to AWA 6.0.
"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 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."
My essay:
The argument states that people now are not concerned regarding their red meat and fatty cheese consumption compared to the people who were concerned regarding these a decade back. The argument states the evidence of Heart's Delight and also compares a old vegetarian restaurant "Good Earth Cafe" to a new House of Beef. The argument is based on weak evidences and unwarrented assumptions. The argument has logical fallacies that will be discussed in the coming sections.
First, the author states the example of a store "Heart's Delight" , which started selling organic products as well as whole-grain flours in 1960. The author assumes that since the store started selling organic products in 1960, it did not sell high fat cheese at that time. Additionally, the sales statistics of the high butterfat cheese can be taken as an evidence but just the mere presence of a wide variety of these type of products can be taken as an evidence to justify that people's attitude has changed. Also the store is located in a particular area and so maybe people in that area are more favourable to cheese with high fat content, but to make a general conclusion on the people as a whole is not logical.
Second, the argument presents a illogical comparison of an old restaurant with the new beef store. This comparison has two flaws. One, the restaurant are not of same type or category, onw is a vegetarian restaurant and other is a non vegetarian outlet. Two, the compared outlets are basically not of same time, one is old and the other is new. So this comparison cannot be logically considered to be a strong premise for the general conclusion that the author makes.
Finally, the parity stated in the income and current economic scenario of the two compared entities may be explained due to some other factors and not solely on the people attitude towards consumption of red meat. The vicinity where the restaurant is located may have another popular vegetarian restaurant that attracts hugh crowd, so the "Good Earth Cafe" is not successful. The "House of Beef" could be successful due to the lack of good Beef store in that area. The owners of the Beef of House could have been millionaires even before the establishment of the Beef of House.
The argument is structured on the basis of huge assumption that the author feels is appropriate, the evidences stated are too weak to support the general conclusion that the author makes. The argument can be strengthened by providing the sales data that is prevelant, two or more different places should be considered and all the restaurants or stores need to be evluated to come to such a general conclusion on the people's mindset and preferences. Thus, the above discussion shows that the argument needs a lot of restructuring to make it logically sound.