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

Could someone rate my response:

The author argues that people are generally less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses today than they were a decade ago. The support provided include claims that health food stores still carry fatty cheeses and are not as successful as the owners of the beef restaurant. Although the other scratches the surface of supporting their argument, there are a few holes in the reasoning. The author could also include additional evidence to strengthen their claim.

First, the author explains that a heath food store carries organic fruits and vegetables as well as high butterfat content. This introduces a false cause and effect thought pattern based on the information presented. The author is hinting that the owners of Heart's Delight is carrying fatty cheeses alongside their healthier options becayse people are not as concerned about regulating thier intake as they were a decade ago. The truth is we are not given any information as to why Heart's delight carries red meat and fatty cheeses. Perhaps the owners never intended to fully focus on strictly organic fruits and vegetables. Perhaps Heart's Delight is about eating food that comes directly from farm to table. In that case, the reasoning they have chosen to sell cheese is because the product market fit is in line with the purpose of the restaurant. Also, the author does not provide any evidence that indicates the cheese products are more or less successful than the veggies and fruits, which makes it difficult to measure its relevance to the argument.

Second, there could be many reasons as to why the Good Earth Cafe is making a modest living, especially in comparison to the new House of Beef restaurant across the street. One point specifically that is mentioned, is that the Good Earth Cafe is old and the House of Beef restaurant is new. Perhaps House of Beef has an online storefront where their products are shipped to grocers in various locations. An older restaurant, like Good Earth Cafe, may not have the ecommerce component, which could be contributing to its lack of success. This example demonstrates that a difference in profits may be due to ability to sell online where products are more accessible rather than a consumer's preference towards red meat and fatty cheeses vs healthier options.

Lastly, another reason that is not considered here is the costs involved. Perhaps the Beef restaurant has lower operating costs whereas the healthier restaurants have higher operating costs. This in turn could result in higher costs to the consumer, as most health foods do come at a cost. Therefore, without the cost and price information, it is impossible to know that the price may be what is causing less success for the health restaurants as compared to the beef restaurant.

There are a few different pieces of evidence that could strenghten the author's argument. Since the author's claim is related to a specific time frame, within the last decade, it would be helpful to compare the sales of a single restaurant today vs the sales a decade ago. That give more information with less variables about the performance of the Good Health vegetarian restaurant over time. On the other hand, the author could also provide more information to qualify that all restaurants have similar go to market channels and prices to take out those as concerns as to why one restaurant may be more successful over the next. Another data point the author could provide would be actual surveys given to consumers about their preferences for food choices today vs a decade ago.

In conclusion, the author's argument tht people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating thier intake of red meat and fatty cheeses is flawed in a number of areas. There is a lack of data that determines exactly why restaurants that sell these products are more successful than others. With additonal data points and less assumptions, the author would be in a better position to support their argument.

Good Luck

Good Luck

Dear Sajjad1994 and other experts, I have my GMAT exam tomorrow. Kindly evaluate my AWA response and share your valuable feedback.

Thanks in advance.

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. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that Heart’s Delight store, started selling cheeses made with high butterfat content and other examples which are not substantiated. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The evidence cited uses ambiguous language. People might be concerned about their intake but to what extent in the past and the present is not cited in the argument. For example, they might have been liberal about their opinion to a certain extent decade ago but now they are even more liberal. The author fails to mention the correlation between the people’s concern and examples stated such as the vegetarian restaurant is still making a modest living and stating the owners of the new house of Beef are millionaires to substantiate the argument.

Second, the argument could have been much clearer if it provided the reasons behind people consuming or incorporating fatty cheese and red meat in their diet. Providing such questionable evidence that people are not as concerned as they were is a mere invalidated opinion. The facts of the past needn't hold to the present-day scenario as the recent technological advancement and studies might have proved that red meat and fatty cheese are rich in protein and consists of healthy fats that are essential for humans, which might have made the people of the present time include meat and fatty cheese to be part of their diet. Even interpreting the questionable evidence in its most pessimistic light, we can expect that this one allegation will explode with serious consequences.

Finally, the argument fails to mention one of the key factors based on which the argument could be evaluated. The reason for the adaption and growth mentioned in the argument is unsubstantiated. The Heart’s Delight store which once sold only organic fruits and vegetables now sells a variety of cheeses made with high butter content could be supported by the above reason that the cheeses can be organic and consists of butterfat that is essential and good for health. The consumers might use cheese in a quantified amount as suggested so that their diet is enriched with the right amount of proteins from veggies, fruits, and cheese. Similarly, the reason for the new house of Beef becoming millionaires could be not only because of the red meat consumption but also because of high demand across the countries for several purposes such as preparation of cattle feed or any other pet food, etc. The claim that these meat stall owners became millionaires only by the meet consumption by the humans is overstated. Without all the information, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking rather than a substantiated argument.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author provided the relevant factors. To evaluate or access a certain situation or argument, one has to have all the relevant information and knowledge. Without the information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Here is the sample essay for you MiruChan

Hi Sajjad1994 and team, Could you please evaluate my AWA? Also, I'm getting a score around 5.5 using gmatclub evaluator but my vocabulary score is 3.5/5. Is it okay?

The argument in the memorandum claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and cite a few examples about a store that provide a wide selection of cheese with high butterfat content that started with selling organic fruits and vegetables in 1960 and the owner of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires. Stated in this way, the argument is inconclusive without supporting its hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts by presenting a distorted view of reality, and is a leap of faith without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could be improved if it is supported with relevance on which the argument core assumptions depend.

Firstly, the argument claims that in general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The argument is a stretch as it fails to consider other factors that might have contributed to the situation. For example, a decade ago people could be suffering from disease and were regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses in order to avoid any further complications in their health. Furthermore, the data could be distorted as it may consider people from one particular set rather than the whole population.

Secondly, the argument claims that a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960s is now selling a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument incorrectly assumes that if a store is selling a wide selection of cheeses made from butterfat then the consumption of the cheese is high. To illustrate, the store started selling cheese because there could be high profit margin as compared with fruits and vegetables. Also, there could be an additional nutritional value that outbalance the benefit of high butterfat content.

Lastly, the argument claims that 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 is flawed as the consumers are not interested to visit old restaurant when the new restaurant is available. The reason could be the services, food quality and architecture are at the old restaurant is not up to the mark in comparison to the new restaurant. Also, the House of Beef could feature both vegetarian and non-vegetarian cuisines in their menu and people are interested to visit the restaurant which offers both the variety.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is there not convincing. In order to assess the merits of the argument, it is necessary to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. In this particular case, one is left with an impression that the argument is based on leap of faith of reasoning rather than inference based on logical reasoning. Therefore the argument is indefensible and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi, please help me rate my essay.


The argument claims that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living while the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires and hence the 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 lacks the relevant facts on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that since the owners of new House of Beef across the street are millionaires, it implies that people prefer eating meat over fruits and vegetables. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any manner. The owner of this beef selling restaurant might be making money for other businesses apart from the restaurant. The argument does not provide any information about the source of income of the owner. Also, red meat is expensive per pound of weight as compared to fruits and vegetables. It is possible that people consume more fruits and vegetables regularly as compared to red meat yet pay more for consumption of meat.

Second, the argument claims that since a store named Heart's Delight which started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in 1960s now gives people a wide variety of cheeses made with high butterfat content to choose from, it means that people are more interested in purchasing cheese than fruits and vegetables. This again is a weak and unsupported claim. The argument fails to provide the sales data of each of the items that is available for purchase. It is possible that the store offers a small amount these cheese products that too to people who have been advised by the doctors to increase their intake of cheese. Cheese consumption is not harmful to all individuals if taken in a regulated amount.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In-order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.

Good Luck

Hi could anyone please rate this, thank you.

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 ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations

My essay

The argument in the article claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis and tends to manipulate facts to give a distorted view of reality. The argument can be efficient if it provided the data on which its core assumptions are made.

First, the argument readily assumes that the owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because sale of beef is resulting in huge profits. This statement can be incorrect because there could be several market indicators. For example, House of Beef is famous for alcohol and its major source of revenue is alcohol rather than beef. The argument could have been more clearer if it explicitly stated the source of income of the owners of the new House of Beef.

Second, the argument claims that owners of the the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not really take into account the other factors. For example, Good Earth Cafe is having losses and the owners are running the business from their own pockets. If the argument provided proper evidence, it would have been more clearer to convince its goals.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasoning and is therefore not convincing. It would be considerably stronger if the author clearly mentioned the source of income of both the restaurants and data stating the number to support the claims. In order to assess the merit of decision, its is necessary to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. Without the required information stated above, the argument remains indefensible and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi! If anyone could provide any quick feedback for the gmat essay I wrote, that would be much appreciated. Thank you!

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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

*****************************************************************************************************************************
The aforementioned argument that people in general are not concerned as they were about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses on first glance appears to be fairly convincing. However, on further scrutiny of the argument and it's logical structure, a number of flaws become evident. Among the most pivotal of the shortcomings of the argument are its inability to address the assumptions and lack of information to substantiate its claims.

First of all, the argument fails to mention if Heart's delight had starting selling only organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's due to concerns of well-being of people or simply due to the lack of resources of cheese. It is also possible that the store did not have enough funds to procure cheese. The argument also mentions that the cheeses have high butterfat content. The implication of a cause and effect relation of cheese and concern for people can not be considered unless we know additional information. Let us consider high butterfat content. Since a percentage is not mentioned, the number could have varied meanings. 10 gram butterfat out of 20 gram cheese? 10 grams butterfat out of 1 kilogram of cheese? The argument also does not state if Heart's delight is actually selling cheese which has a lower fat content than earlier? If that is the case, then it can not be concluded that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of fatty cheese

Second, we do not know how much cheese Heart's delight actually sells. What is the cheese actually make up for only 1% of the total sales? We also do not know if people are buying the cheeses for their personal consumption. What if people are buying fatty cheeses for their pets? The argument then again would be called into question.

Further, the argument mentions Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant with declining sales. What if healthy eating was not a major factor for the decline in sales? What if the primary reason was bad food, poor advertising or stiff competition from other newer vegetarian restaurants? The article's reasoning suffers from a sampling bias.

Moreover, the article mentions the owners of House of Beef to be millionaires. We don not know if the owners were already millionaires before they opened the restaurant. The article also fails to mention if House of Beef actually serves red meat dishes or it's only the name of the restaurant and it actually serves vegetarian dishes or protein-rich meat dishes.

Thus, without the consideration of the aforementioned points, the argument provides an incomplete picture which is not sufficient enough to substantiate its claims. Unless the claims have been backed up by the reasons mentioned above, it must be regarded as a biased opinion rather than a legitimate claim.

*****************************************************************************************************************************

Do not post the same essay twice at different posts/places. This essay is already evaluated.

Thank you!

AWA Evaluation Request

The argument states that people’s intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has increased over the past decade. This is based on premises: high butterfat chesses at a store that started with selling organic fruits and vegetables, and the incomes of two different restaurant owners, one of whom is a millionaire who sells beef while the other is a modest earner who runs a vegetarian restaurant. Stated this way, the argument relies on several unsubstantiated assumptions, draws extreme conclusions and is logically flawed.

Firstly, the argument assumes that people’s concern towards red meat and fatty cheeses changed from a decade ago. The evidence presented in the argument for this is of just two situations, but the conclusion is very broad as it generalizes people behaviour across the world. This is an error of composition. Had the argument used broad data across geographies, it could have looked more convincing. For example, aggregate demand of red meat and fatty cheeses across countries over the past decade. Without this data, any generalized conclusion is not logically valid.

Secondly, the argument is also based on the presence of high butterfat cheese at Heart’s Delight, a store that started as organic fruit and vegetable seller. This is a stretch since the community in which the restaurant operates may always have been consuming red meat and fatty cheeses and Heart’s Delight may have made the decision to expand its menu of options for its customers and thus included the items. Normalizing change in behaviour just based on one example is a stretch.
The argument also states that income of the old vegetarian restaurant owner is modest and that of the new House of Beef owners across the street are millionaires. The author does not consider the other sources of incomes of both the owners and does not present any evidence to prove that the House of Beef owners became millionaires from the income from restaurant. In fact, they may have already been millionaires and are losing money from House of Beef while the owners of old vegetarian restaurant may have been dirt poor before they started operating the restaurant and the profits enabled them to reach modest income level. Without presenting the relevant circumstances of their income, the argument falls apart.

In conclusion, the argument is based on extreme conclusions drawn on flawed assumptions. It may look valid on surface but falls apart when analysed on logical basis. The argument could have been better presented with statistical information, such as the total consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses across aggregate list of countries over the last ten years to understand the change in demand pattern. However, stated this way, there are several logical gaps in the argument that are to be filled.

Sajjad1994 bb - Please could you rate if either of you have got a minute? Thanks a lot!

Sajjad1994

Please evaluate my essay. Also, can you please guide me on how one can access the GMATClub AWA grader? Thanks.

START

The argument claims that people today are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The argument supports this claim by providing instances of stores such as Heart's Delight, which started as an organic store but now has a wide selection of high fat cheeses. It then proceeds to compare stores like Good Earth which is an old vegetarian restaurant still making a modest living while stores that sell meat such as House Of Beef whose owners are millionaires. Stated this way the argument fails to address major issues and factors that might be causing such discrepancy in earnings and revenues other than just the ability to sell fatty cheese and red meat. The argument is thus weak, its assumptions baseless and does not provide a strong understanding of the situation.

Firstly, the argument assumes that people are not concerned about regulating their intake of redmeat by assuming more people are buying products from stores such as House Of Beef, leading to higher earnings and profits for the owners, making them millionaires. This assumption on part of the argument is incorrect because it fails to factor in a scenario in which the owners of House Of Beef might have already been millionaires before they opened the store. This would directly contradict the claim that more people are buying red meat and fatty stuff and thus are not as concerned. The argument would have been stronger if it provided instances of whether the reason for the net worth of the owners was solely the House Of Beef and not because of any other of their businesses.

Secondly, the argument claims that owners of Good Earth Cafe are still making a modest living because they are not selling red meat and cheese products. The argument is flawed in this context in that there could be another reason for the lower profits and revenue. One could speculate that the quality of products in the store is not at the current market standards and thus fewer people buy products from this store. Furthermore, not all non vegetarian food is red meat. There are many healthy non vegetarian alternatives to red meat such as fish and eggs that the Good Earth store, as it is a vegetarian, store does not sell. People might prefer to buy such healthier alternatives from stores that do sell them, such as House Of Beef and Heart's Delight rather than to just buy unhealthy cheese and red meat from the stores. The argument would have strengthened this claim had it provided examples of cases regarding the product quality of Good Earth store being at par or above the quality of products in other stores.

Thirdly, the argument has, without any basis, assumed that just because stores such as Heart's Delight have started to sell high fat products, this directly correlates to more people buying such products. This is a rather flawed understanding of how stores function. Stores planning to increase profits may have a wider variety of products as this would allow customers from multiple segments and different interests to be able to select products of their choice from the store. And since the argument as provided no instances of whether the reason for the addition of high fat products by the store is solely because of high customer demand, this argument is open to open to criticism.

Finally, the argument considers the cases of only a few stores as a general understanding of the current consumption trends for the majority of population. This again is very extreme given there might be many others stores which only sell vegetarian or healthy non vegetarian items and whose owners might be making higher profits and revenues than all the stores considered in the argument combined. Thus as evident from the above analysis, one can clearly infer that not only is the argument flawed in its understanding of majority public perceptions, but also in its limited scope of factors that it considers to present its conclusion. Overall thus, the argument fails to provide the complete list of factors that are needed to assess the argument.

END

Can somebody please review my essay?

The argument claims that generally 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 convey a distorted view of the situation. The examples fail to consider several key factors, based on which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

Firstly, the author assumes that because a store started storing a wide variety of cheeses the intake of those must have increased. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in anyway. The reasons for including the cheese could be several others not relating to the increase in demand and thereby increase in consumption. For Example: The store would want to increase the footfall by diversifying to more range of products. Had the argument clearly provided the figures on the change in consumption patterns of Cheese versus Organic fruits and vegetables, it would be more convincing.

Second, the argument unfairly ties the financial disparity of House of Beef and Good Earth Café with the fact that consumption of beef is increasing when compared to vegetarian food. This is again a very week and unsupported claim. It cannot be a fair comparison between the two restaurants’ financials until we consider factors like Quality of food, Varieties of food, Price point, area of the restaurant, etc. If the argument had provided evidence that all the other factors are same, and the increase sales is a result of people’s preferences then the argument would be a lot more convincing.

Finally, both the examples commit flaws of over-simplification and generalization. Using observations from three restaurants in an area to conclude seems a bit far-fetched. It could be the case that a lot of other vegetarian restaurants are doing well in the area. It might also be the case that a lot of organic stores have opened in the area and have been doing very well, indicating that people are choosing healthier options. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Had the author stated relevant facts, the argument could be considerably strengthened. For instance, the data for how cheese purchases across the stores have increased, which can thereby help us determine the consumption. Also, data points on customers visiting beef versus non-beef restaurants can assist in understanding the propensity of customers toward a particular product. With such evidence provided, the writer can then make an informed evaluation on whether cheese and beef consumption has increased over the past decade.