Please rate my Essay

Hey folks, I have scheduled my GMAT later this week. Would appreciate any feedback on my AWA. Please help.

"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"

The argument claims that people, in general, are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese, as they were a decade ago. The author justifies the conclusion by citing an example of how a store owner that sold organic products with a wide selection of cheese went millionaires as compared to an old vegetarian restaurant store that was adjacently located. The reasoning behind the stated conclusion relies on a weak assumption with lack of substantial evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak and has several flaws.

First, the evidence is weak. Though the conclusion is made on the general population the sample considered in the argument not does correctly reflects its population. The author compares the sales of the store with a vegetarian restaurant. The store used to sell a wide selection of cheese with high butterfat content along with vegetables and fruits as compared to an old vegetarian restaurant. If we closely analyze the statement, the increase in sales of the first store cannot be fully attributed to the availability of the wide selection of cheese, but also to a wide selection of other organic vegetables and fruits. Since the store offers a good variety of products with organic quality, it is likely that the store sales will increase over time. On the other hand, the restaurant only offers vegetarian segment. The target population in the former case of the store is larger since it is catering to a much broader segment of food as compared to the small target segment of the restaurant. Moreover, a comparison of this kind is like comparing apples and oranges. The customer base of both the segment is different, hence not comparable. This customer dependent if they want to choose a store over a restaurant or vice-versa.

Second, the conclusion is too extreme and statistically insignificant. The author does not substantiate the conclusion with any form or data that would prove the point. The conclusion should rather avoid using extreme words. It should substitute “people in general” with the percentage of individuals that were concerned about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheese a decade prior vs now. This would give us a reliable conclusion.

Clearly, the argument is flawed hence convincing. As stated in the second paragraph, the comparison is not valid. The author instead of comparing a single store to a single restaurant should rather compare the sales of the representative sample of stores which sell red meat and fatty cheese vs who do not in the same demographic region. And, then further analyze the trend of the sales output across the decade. The author could either study group of non-vegan vs vegan restaurants and then draw the correlation. This would still provide a close representation of the population in general. In order to draw the conclusion of a certain situation, it is essential to use the representative sample and correct evidence of the set.

Many Thanks.