Please rate my essay

Hi, this is my version of the essay from the OG:

Discuss how well reasoned...

The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper:

“Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject.”

Analysis:

The author states that the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth over the past decade and that this surge is expected to continue in the upcoming years due to numerous factors fueled by social changes within the country. In this, the author makes various unstated assumptions and hence his/her argument is weak and in its current form, the argument is flawed.

The author assumes that since the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth over the past decade, it will continue to do so in the coming years because of social changes within the country. This is a very strong conclusion to make since various factors that are favourable to the citizens of Spiessa which make it possible for them to spend on restaurants now may not even exist in the upcoming years. It is possible that a sudden recession might hit which might in turn affect the personal incomes of people. If such factors are to put monetary pressure on the citizens, they might not even be able to afford the luxury of visiting restaurants. In such a situation, people might have to work overtime or do multiple jobs to maintain their expenses or even earn some money for personal expenses of greater importance than visiting restaurants. A recession might increase unemployment and make people go in debt which in turn will affect the rate at which people spend on restaurants. In such situations of recession, it will suddenly be difficult for people to have single households and it would be more economical for people to start sharing the households by sharing rent to save on monthly expenditures. People might thus cook their own food at home rather than eat at restaurants. Publications regarding recession and job opportunities might replace most of the publications about gourmet food.

Another major flaw in the argument is the assumption that only social changes within Spiessa are responsible for the growth in the restaurant industry. This assumption is not completely logical since the author fails to recognise other factors that might have contributed to the growth in the restaurant industry. Factors like increased tourism can contribute to the rise in people eating out at restaurants. Yet another factor that could have been contributing to an unprecedented growth in the restaurant industry could be the availability of good quality local produce of vegetables, fruits, etc which would be beneficial to the restaurant industry.

However, there is no proof for the surge in the restaurant industry to continue over the upcoming years as well. Just because there was a surge in the restaurant industry over the last years, does not mean that the surge will continue over time. The author can improve his/her argument by evaluating the other side of the argument and by considering more examples and factors that may contribute to a surge in the restaurant industry. The author fails to recognise this biggest flaw and fails to acknowledge the other side of the situation in writing his/her argument. Finally, in its current state however, the argument is flawed.

Please rate it and suggest changes!

Thanks ,
K