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

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!

Good Luck

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

Good Luck

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.

Good Luck

The author of the article claims that people today are not as conscious now as earlier about regulating their consumption of red meat and fatty cheese. He provides us no important information to evaluate the argument. The argument therefore reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear reasoning and is therefore weak and unconvincing.

Firstly, the argument informs us that a store ‘hearts delight’ which started selling organic fruits and vegetables is now also selling cheese with high butterfat content. The author however provides no basis for how this claim helps us reach to the conclusion that the author presents. There could be multiple factors on the basis of which the store started selling these items which includes expanding their market. There is also no information on how many people are buying those products. If the author provided details of how many stores and how many people have switched their preferences then the argument could have been much clearer.
Secondly the argument mentions how the ‘new house of beef’ shop owners are millionaires but the owners of an old vegetarian restaurant are only making a modest living. The argument readily assumes that the reason for difference in profits or income is because of the products that they sell. However this claim is a stretch because the author does not provide us concrete data on the number of stores that house of beef has, countries they are based, sizes of their stores, the author also does not provide any of the mentioned information about the vegetarian store.
Thirdly, is what is happening in these two stores that the author has taken example of also happening in any other places? How does the population difference affect the increase in purchase of fatty food or red meat? Have people been consuming comparatively much more of what they consumed earlier? Without the answer to these and other such question that arise in the mind of the reader of the argument , the argument seems unconvincing and one is left with an impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather that substantiated fact.

In conclusion the argument is weak and unconvincing. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author provided relevant facts but without this information the argument remains open to debate.




could someone please help me rate my AWA?

Good Luck

Hello, can someone rate this essay?

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 cheese. This argument tries to support the claim by providing some incomplete evidence regarding the store and the restaurants. The author has also made some underlying assumptions for which no clear evidence can be provided. Below stated are some of these flaws in the argument.

First, the argument readily assumes that the people who walk into the Heart's Delight store buy more cheeses made with high butterfat content. The argument only states that there are a wide variety of cheeses available and tries to imply that people are not as concerned about their cheese intake now, but it does not provide any evidence about how many people are actually buying the cheeses. If there is a wide variety of cheese on display that does not mean that people buy them. If the author had provided some emperical data on how many people buy the organic goods and how many of them buy the fatty products, the argument would have been much clearer.

Second, the author provides no evidence about the owner's wealth of the new House of Beef across the street in comparison with the owners of the Good Earth Cafe. The author states that the owners of the beef restaurants are millionares but does not explicitly state that they have become millionares due to the restaurant, maybe they were already millionares when they opened it. This cannot support the conclusion about the people's concern regarding their meat and cheese intake.

Third, the author's perspective about the two restaurants is only because of their names. For example, if the Good Earth Cafe sells food with high fatty vegetarian cheese but the House of Beef sells low fat red meat, this can imply that the people are concerned about their culinary choices but this comparison is improper. It can also be the case in which the Good Earth Cafe sells food at a substantialy lower amount than the House of Beef, therefore due to the high costs of food the owners have become millionares but without knowing the number of customers a strong conclusion cannot be made.

The argument is flawed on the basis of numerous reasons. Hence, this argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

AWA Evaluation Request

In the above argument we get to know that in general people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. However the author of the argument is not taking into consideration the population increase in 10 years. It is highly possible that the population increased and now this data is not comparable with the population that existed 10 years ago.

Secondly we need to understand the number of stores, restaurants , cafes available a decade ago. There is a high chance with the increase in population the number of stores, restaurants , cafes increased significantly and so did the availability of new products, new variety of cheeses and meat. It is highly possible 10 years ago there were limited choices and they might not be as good as they are today.

Another reason we need to take into consideration is the fact that with inflation the salaries of people increased and now they are better equipped to buy such products than they were 10 year ago. Maybe a decade back people did not want to spend so much on such products and preferred only products they could afford.

Another example can be the number of tourists visiting must have also increased significantly and they would want to try out new stuff which might not be available back in their home country. Lastly there is also a very high chance with increase in population more people started going to gym and eat healthy than they did 10 years ago. Therefore to say people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago solely based on the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses is a very broad statement and not justified.

Good Luck