Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 16:21 It is currently 21 May 2024, 16:21
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2022
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Send PM
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [0]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Feb 2022
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Send PM
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [1]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!


Good Luck

NikTek wrote:
Here's my essay:

The argument states that the kind of food being sold today at one of the stores selling organic food earlier and the performance of this store compared to a cafe is indicative of the trend that people in general are moving towards an unhealthy diet. This argument is flawed for several reasons as it makes some unsubstantiated assumptions and arrives at a conclusion by linking separate facts without the support of any evidence.

The argument begins by saying claiming that a change in the trend of the food being sold at one of the stores i.e. Heart’s Delight is indicative of the fact that people are less concerned about eating a healthy diet. The argument is flawed since it draws a conclusion about the entire population based on the trend of sales at just one store. The argument would have better supported the claim by drawing examples of numerous grocery stores and not just one.

Next, the argument compares the sales trend at a store to that of a cafe. This way of assuming a common reason for their respective performance i.e. lack of preference for healthy food, is an inappropriate way to draw a conclusion. The cafe could be just one of the many cafes and restaurants in the area and its performance could be impacted by several reasons such as its location, level of competition, etc.

Owing to the above reasons, the author’s arguments of correlating the types of food sold at a particular store and cafe is flawed. The author could have strengthened the arguments by sharing larger trends such as several stores and change in menus at many restaurants to support his claim.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Oct 2022
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Could you kindly rate my essay as well?

--------------
The statement is of a questionable value without any data to support it. Firstly, the author does not provide any reference number in order to compare by how much the intake of red meat and fatty cheese increased from 1960s until now. Secondly, without knowing the delta increase of consumption between then and now, we can easily attribute the perceived increase to the sole increase of the population. Thirdly, vegetarianism is still a niche and we cannot draw a conclusion solely by comparing wealth between the two different restaurant owners. Fourthly, we cannot directly attribute the wealth solely to the income from the restaurant for both owners, as far as we are concerned, House of Beef owner might have been a millionaire before starting the restaurant. In sum, the author draws conclusion out of thin air. To improve the argument, the author should provide a ratio by how much the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has increased between 1960s and now. Further, the argument could be strengthened by including the ratio of population shifting from carnivore to vegetarian in the same span of time. Lastly, it would be interesting to see a ratio of vegetarian and vegan restaurants compared to carnivore ones between 1960s and now.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [0]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Expert Reply
amies wrote:
Could you kindly rate my essay as well?

--------------
The statement is of a questionable value without any data to support it. Firstly, the author does not provide any reference number in order to compare by how much the intake of red meat and fatty cheese increased from 1960s until now. Secondly, without knowing the delta increase of consumption between then and now, we can easily attribute the perceived increase to the sole increase of the population. Thirdly, vegetarianism is still a niche and we cannot draw a conclusion solely by comparing wealth between the two different restaurant owners. Fourthly, we cannot directly attribute the wealth solely to the income from the restaurant for both owners, as far as we are concerned, House of Beef owner might have been a millionaire before starting the restaurant. In sum, the author draws conclusion out of thin air. To improve the argument, the author should provide a ratio by how much the intake of red meat and fatty cheeses has increased between 1960s and now. Further, the argument could be strengthened by including the ratio of population shifting from carnivore to vegetarian in the same span of time. Lastly, it would be interesting to see a ratio of vegetarian and vegan restaurants compared to carnivore ones between 1960s and now.


Hello amies

Welcome to GMAT Club!

Before I go to evaluate your essay I would suggest you read the following AWA guides thoroughly and reconsider your essay. Once you ready please post your essay again I will evaluate the same.

Thank you!

https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-gmatclub ... 36251.html
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Oct 2022
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [2]
Given Kudos: 8
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Sajjad1994 wrote:
On which prompt this essay is based?

I can assume the essay is based on the following prompt but please confirm it first.

"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."

Hi Sajjad, I didn't know how to tag you on the reply of this thread. So, I am quoting your reply so you can see my message.
Here is my AWA on the above-mentioned prompt. Please rate it. Thank You!!

The argument claims that people now are not as concerned as they were before about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, and then goes on to give examples of different stores to prove its points. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and provide a distorted image of the situation. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions that have no concrete evidence. Hence, the conclusion of the argument is unconvincing, weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that Good Earth Cafe, Heart’s Delight or House of Beef, located in same area will provide information for the people in general. This is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous example to understand this, such as If a person wants to know about “Who is more popular between Ronaldo and Messi?”, for this she goes to either Argentina or Portugal then the whole research will be biased as those are the country where Messi and Ronaldo, respectively lives. From the example it is clear that taking a single locality in consideration and stating its facts as a mean to cater to general population is not correct, for fair research the researcher should collect from different places across globe to make her research more substantiated. Hence, the it is clear from the example that the argument would have been much cleared if it explicitly stated the facts for that particular area or took some more areas in consideration.

Second, the argument talks about the Heart’s Delight Store, which sells organic fruits and vegetable and whole grain flours and there is also section of store where they sell cheeses made with high butterfat content. This does not prove anything as one can conclude anything from such misinformation. For example, one can understand that there might be some industry near the area which buys that cheeses from the store and for that reason they have open a separate area to sell cheeses or one can doubt whether the store earn from the cheeses or its just a fail attempt to introduce something new in the market. Without supporting evidence and examples it not possible to evaluate the argument clearly. Hence, one is left with the impression that claim is more of wishful think rather than substantiate evidence. Hence the argument has no legs to stand on

Third, the argument claims that, Good Earth Cafe an old vegetarian restaurant is making modest earning while the owners of House of Beef across the street are millionaires. This again is a weak and unconvincing claim as the argument try to demonstrate a correlation between earning made from selling something and general acceptability of that thing among people. For instance, it is possible to establish a correlation between these two but for that there should be proper facts to establish that relation. But the argument does not provide any evidence to support its claims. If the argument had provided evidence such as sales of different products of both the cafe or survey of people that had gone to those restaurant that the argument could have been a lot more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mention all the relevant fact.Also, in order to asses the merits of a argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without the information, argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [1]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 - 6 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!


Good Luck

iamap07 wrote:
Sajjad1994 wrote:
On which prompt this essay is based?

I can assume the essay is based on the following prompt but please confirm it first.

"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."

Hi Sajjad, I didn't know how to tag you on the reply of this thread. So, I am quoting your reply so you can see my message.
Here is my AWA on the above-mentioned prompt. Please rate it. Thank You!!

The argument claims that people now are not as concerned as they were before about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, and then goes on to give examples of different stores to prove its points. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and provide a distorted image of the situation. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions that have no concrete evidence. Hence, the conclusion of the argument is unconvincing, weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that Good Earth Cafe, Heart’s Delight or House of Beef, located in same area will provide information for the people in general. This is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous example to understand this, such as If a person wants to know about “Who is more popular between Ronaldo and Messi?”, for this she goes to either Argentina or Portugal then the whole research will be biased as those are the country where Messi and Ronaldo, respectively lives. From the example it is clear that taking a single locality in consideration and stating its facts as a mean to cater to general population is not correct, for fair research the researcher should collect from different places across globe to make her research more substantiated. Hence, the it is clear from the example that the argument would have been much cleared if it explicitly stated the facts for that particular area or took some more areas in consideration.

Second, the argument talks about the Heart’s Delight Store, which sells organic fruits and vegetable and whole grain flours and there is also section of store where they sell cheeses made with high butterfat content. This does not prove anything as one can conclude anything from such misinformation. For example, one can understand that there might be some industry near the area which buys that cheeses from the store and for that reason they have open a separate area to sell cheeses or one can doubt whether the store earn from the cheeses or its just a fail attempt to introduce something new in the market. Without supporting evidence and examples it not possible to evaluate the argument clearly. Hence, one is left with the impression that claim is more of wishful think rather than substantiate evidence. Hence the argument has no legs to stand on

Third, the argument claims that, Good Earth Cafe an old vegetarian restaurant is making modest earning while the owners of House of Beef across the street are millionaires. This again is a weak and unconvincing claim as the argument try to demonstrate a correlation between earning made from selling something and general acceptability of that thing among people. For instance, it is possible to establish a correlation between these two but for that there should be proper facts to establish that relation. But the argument does not provide any evidence to support its claims. If the argument had provided evidence such as sales of different products of both the cafe or survey of people that had gone to those restaurant that the argument could have been a lot more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mention all the relevant fact.Also, in order to asses the merits of a argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without the information, argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2019
Posts: 27
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994,

Hope you are well!

Could you please review my essay as well?

Thank you so much in advance!

The argument claims that people are generally not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The argument also compared two stores besides each other that make a different living depending upon the types of goods they sell and their substantive sales. Stated in this argument are several key factors upon which it can be concluded. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no substantive evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument claims that Heart's Delight started in the 1960s by selling organic fruits and vegetables, and whole grain flours, and has started selling a wide selection of cheese. This statement is a stretch as it does not clearly mention when did Heart's Delight started selling cheese, it could be recently or more than a decade ago. It also fails to mention the shelf life of the cheese and the possibility that people could have been buying cheese in bulk due to several factors. For example, a huge discount on a variety of cheese could be a possible reason for increased sales that made the author believe that people have started consuming more cheese than they did a decade ago. The argument could have been much clearer had it mentioned the facts about the trends of purchase of cheese by customers and other related factors.

Second, the argument claims that the owners of Good Earth Café, which is an old vegetarian restaurant make a modest living while the owners of House of Beef are billionaires. This argument is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails to illustrate any correlation between the wealth of the owners and the general consumption of meat v/s vegetarian food. For example, a majority of the population of this city could prefer the consumption of meat in balance with vegetarian food as meat also has high nutritional value. Additionally, there might be a possibility that House of Beef has several successful franchises and a better advertising strategy around the city while Good Earth Café has none resulting in the owners of House of Beef being millionaires. If the argument had provided evidence about their marketing strategy, the variety of food, and the scalability of both the cafes, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument overlooks a variety of possibilities because of which it is difficult to conclude whether people are as concerned about their consumption of meat and cheese as they were a decade ago. What are the available options of cheese in the market? Do meat and cheese being sold are of high nutritional value? Are there any discounts being offered in various stores? Are sales of meat and vegetarian food in cafes the right comparison to conclude high consumption of meat? Without convincing answers to at least some of these questions, one is left with the impression that it is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above stated reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about the trends followed by the people in consumption of meat and cheese, and the manner in which they pursue the available options in the market.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [1]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5.5
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity. The writer effectively connects the different points in the argument and presents a clear line of reasoning. The essay follows a logical structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Transitions between paragraphs and ideas are generally smooth, although there are a few instances where the connection could be strengthened with more explicit transitional phrases.

Word structure: 6
The essay uses a varied and appropriate range of word structures. Sentences are well-structured and convey the writer's ideas clearly. The essay effectively uses a mix of simple and complex sentences to convey the argument in a coherent manner.

Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5
The essay has a clear paragraph structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument and presents a coherent idea. However, some of the paragraphs could be further developed with additional evidence or examples to support the points made.

Language and Grammar: 5.5
The essay demonstrates good language use and grammar, with only minor errors. There are a few instances where sentence structures could be improved for clarity. Additionally, some sentences could be revised to enhance the flow and coherence of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5
The essay uses a range of vocabulary that is appropriate for the task. There are instances where more precise and varied vocabulary could be used to enhance the expression of ideas. Additionally, there are a few instances where word choices could be revised for better clarity and precision.

Overall, the essay is well-written with a clear line of reasoning and effective use of evidence. However, there is room for improvement in terms of providing more concrete evidence and examples to support the argument, enhancing the paragraph development, and refining the language use and vocabulary. The essay is scored at 5.5 out of 6.


arnimavarshney10 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994,

Hope you are well!

Could you please review my essay as well?

Thank you so much in advance!

The argument claims that people are generally not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The argument also compared two stores besides each other that make a different living depending upon the types of goods they sell and their substantive sales. Stated in this argument are several key factors upon which it can be concluded. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no substantive evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument claims that Heart's Delight started in the 1960s by selling organic fruits and vegetables, and whole grain flours, and has started selling a wide selection of cheese. This statement is a stretch as it does not clearly mention when did Heart's Delight started selling cheese, it could be recently or more than a decade ago. It also fails to mention the shelf life of the cheese and the possibility that people could have been buying cheese in bulk due to several factors. For example, a huge discount on a variety of cheese could be a possible reason for increased sales that made the author believe that people have started consuming more cheese than they did a decade ago. The argument could have been much clearer had it mentioned the facts about the trends of purchase of cheese by customers and other related factors.

Second, the argument claims that the owners of Good Earth Café, which is an old vegetarian restaurant make a modest living while the owners of House of Beef are billionaires. This argument is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails to illustrate any correlation between the wealth of the owners and the general consumption of meat v/s vegetarian food. For example, a majority of the population of this city could prefer the consumption of meat in balance with vegetarian food as meat also has high nutritional value. Additionally, there might be a possibility that House of Beef has several successful franchises and a better advertising strategy around the city while Good Earth Café has none resulting in the owners of House of Beef being millionaires. If the argument had provided evidence about their marketing strategy, the variety of food, and the scalability of both the cafes, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument overlooks a variety of possibilities because of which it is difficult to conclude whether people are as concerned about their consumption of meat and cheese as they were a decade ago. What are the available options of cheese in the market? Do meat and cheese being sold are of high nutritional value? Are there any discounts being offered in various stores? Are sales of meat and vegetarian food in cafes the right comparison to conclude high consumption of meat? Without convincing answers to at least some of these questions, one is left with the impression that it is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above stated reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about the trends followed by the people in consumption of meat and cheese, and the manner in which they pursue the available options in the market.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2022
Posts: 42
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 51
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994 pls rate my essay. Thanks a lot :)

____

The argument in the magazine article makes the bold claim that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese and seeks to support such a claim by providing examples such as the fact that Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic foods now has a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. However, the argument is deeply flawed because it relies on several unsupported assumptions and because it fails to consider other factors that are encessary in reaching a conclusion.

First, the argument is flawed because it offers no evidence that people are not as concerned about regulating their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption as they were a decade ago. Without offering cogent data to support such a claim, the argument is open to debate. One could argue that people are in fact more cognizant of their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption now because of developments in research and technology that can now show the unhealthy nature of such foods. The argument could be made clearer by bolstering its main claim with data and evidence from research or surveys that show people are less concerned about regulating their intake of foods mentioned in the argument.

In addition, the argument is flawed because it seeks to support its main claim by using unconvincing examples. The example about Heart's Delight now offering a wide selection of fatty cheeses does not adequately prove that people are less concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. One could argue that Heart's Delight started offering cheeses because they saw the profitability of the cheese market and not necessarily because a general unconcern for the consumption of fatty cheeses arose. The argument could be made more convincing by showing that Heart's Delight's inclusion of fatty cheese arose from people's increased lack of concern for their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption.

Lastly, the argument is flawed because it uses the fact that the owners of House of Beef are wealthier than those of Good Earth Cafe to show that people are now more unconcerned about their intake of red meat. However, the use of such an example does nothing to strengthen the argument. Perhaps the owners of House of Beef run an entire franchise which brings them a lot more profit, while the owners of Good Eath Cafe run a simple single restaurant that brings them a modest income; such a difference, and not people's unconcern for their intake of red meat, could explain the wealth gap. The argument could be made more convincing by showing that Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef are very similar in terms of operation and that the driving force for wealth of House of Beef's owners is people's increased consumption of red meat.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the aforementioned reasons. It could be made signifcantly stronger by offering evidence to support its claim and by using more convincing examples to bolster its claim that people are now less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were a decade ago. However, because the argument fails to do so, it is unconvincing and open to debate.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [0]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/6
The essay is well-organized and easy to follow. The author uses effective transitions between sentences and paragraphs to guide the reader through the argument. However, there are a few instances where the argument could have been more tightly connected, particularly in the second paragraph.

Word structure: 5/6
The essay uses a variety of sentence structures effectively. The author demonstrates a good command of language, and there are no major grammatical errors. However, there are a few instances where sentence structure could have been more varied to enhance readability.

Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5/6
The essay effectively uses paragraphs to organize the argument. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and flows logically from the previous one. However, there are a few instances where the author could have used topic sentences more effectively to clearly introduce the main argument of the paragraph.

Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a good command of language and grammar. The author uses a range of vocabulary effectively and avoids common grammatical errors. However, there are a few instances where the author could have used more precise language to convey their point more clearly.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a good command of vocabulary and effectively conveys the author's arguments. There are a few instances where more precise language could have been used, but overall the author effectively communicates their ideas and arguments.

Overall, this is a well-written essay that effectively analyzes the argument presented in the magazine article. The author effectively identifies flaws in the reasoning and presents alternative explanations for the examples given. With some minor improvements in coherence and connectivity, this essay would be a strong piece of analytical writing.


donu wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994 pls rate my essay. Thanks a lot :)
___

The argument in the magazine article makes the bold claim that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese and seeks to support such a claim by providing examples such as the fact that Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic foods now has a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. However, the argument is deeply flawed because it relies on several unsupported assumptions and because it fails to consider other factors that are encessary in reaching a conclusion.

First, the argument is flawed because it offers no evidence that people are not as concerned about regulating their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption as they were a decade ago. Without offering cogent data to support such a claim, the argument is open to debate. One could argue that people are in fact more cognizant of their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption now because of developments in research and technology that can now show the unhealthy nature of such foods. The argument could be made clearer by bolstering its main claim with data and evidence from research or surveys that show people are less concerned about regulating their intake of foods mentioned in the argument.

In addition, the argument is flawed because it seeks to support its main claim by using unconvincing examples. The example about Heart's Delight now offering a wide selection of fatty cheeses does not adequately prove that people are less concerned about their intake of fatty cheeses. One could argue that Heart's Delight started offering cheeses because they saw the profitability of the cheese market and not necessarily because a general unconcern for the consumption of fatty cheeses arose. The argument could be made more convincing by showing that Heart's Delight's inclusion of fatty cheese arose from people's increased lack of concern for their red meat and fatty cheeses consumption.

Lastly, the argument is flawed because it uses the fact that the owners of House of Beef are wealthier than those of Good Earth Cafe to show that people are now more unconcerned about their intake of red meat. However, the use of such an example does nothing to strengthen the argument. Perhaps the owners of House of Beef run an entire franchise which brings them a lot more profit, while the owners of Good Eath Cafe run a simple single restaurant that brings them a modest income; such a difference, and not people's unconcern for their intake of red meat, could explain the wealth gap. The argument could be made more convincing by showing that Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef are very similar in terms of operation and that the driving force for wealth of House of Beef's owners is people's increased consumption of red meat.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the aforementioned reasons. It could be made signifcantly stronger by offering evidence to support its claim and by using more convincing examples to bolster its claim that people are now less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were a decade ago. However, because the argument fails to do so, it is unconvincing and open to debate.
Ross & Kellogg Moderator
Joined: 26 May 2021
Posts: 203
Own Kudos [?]: 67 [0]
Given Kudos: 723
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
Send PM
In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994, pls rate my essay.

Q- "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 are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses, using the support that owners House of Beef restaurant are millionaires while owners of Good Earth café which is a vegetarian place are just making a modest living. The argument also uses as support the fact that Heart’s Delight, an organic fruits and vegetable seller in 1960s, has started selling a wide variety of cheeses with high butterfat content. Stated in this way, the argument reveals example of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence this argument has very weak legs to stand upon.
First, the argument conveniently looks over what the source of income/wealth is for owners of House of Beef while using the economic status of the House of Beef owners as proof that people are eating red meet in huge amounts. What if the House of Beef restaurant is in deep debt because of very low sales and the millionaire status of House of Beef owners is because of their generational wealth? The argument also never bothers to dive into what actually are the customers of House of Beef eating when they visit the restaurant. Are they really only eating red meat in huge amounts or does red meat constitute a very small part of the total volume of orders at House of Beef? Had the author even touched upon the aforementioned points, it would have been a much stronger one. In the absence of convincing answers to these questions, the argument’s claims come across as a stretch.
Secondly, the author also uses economic status of owners of Good Earth Café and the selection of cheeses available at Heart’s Delight as support for their argument that people’s eating habits have gone down the drain. Again, using the economic status of owners of Good Earth Café as a yardstick to measure the eating habits of its patrons is a perfect example of flawed reasoning. The author never once gives any support to their argument that the eating patterns of its customers are the reason for decline of Good Earth Café. It could also very well be the case that other vegetarian cafes in the vicinity might be flourishing but Good Earth has lost customers because of its shoddy service, high prices or any other similar reason. Also, the author uses the presence of selection of cheeses in Heart’s Delight as another proof that now people are indulging in high butterfat content cheeses. This is another assumption for which the author provides no evidence. There is no correlation demonstrated by the author between presence of the cheese section in Heart’s Delight and increase in cheese consumption by the people coming to Heart’s Delight.
There are many questions that have been left unanswered by the author. Had the author answered questions such as how indicative are the trends in these three stores of the eating habits of people as a whole in the town/country where these stores are present, are the stores similar to these stores also experiencing the same things as mentioned by the author and how many people out of the total have actually increased their consumption of red meat and cheese, they could have definitely made this argument much more convincing
Finally, the holes in this argument are many in number and massive in size. The author must procure evidence for the assumptions they use to reach the conclusion. Failure to mention several key factors that are crucial to assess the merits and demerits of the argument leaves to argument open to debate.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [1]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 4.5 - 5 out of 6

Coherence and Connectivity: 4.5/6
The essay has a generally coherent structure, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. It presents arguments and counterarguments in a logical sequence. However, some sentences and ideas are not well connected, leading to a slightly choppy flow.

Word Structure: 5/6
The word structure is mostly sound, with a range of vocabulary and sentence structures. There are a few instances of awkward phrasing, but overall, the essay effectively conveys its points.

Paragraph Structure and Formation: 4/6
The essay has a basic paragraph structure, but some paragraphs could be more organized and focused. A few paragraphs contain multiple ideas, making it less clear where one point ends, and another begins.

Language and Grammar: 5/6
The language and grammar are generally solid, with only a few minor errors in sentence construction and verb agreement. There are a few places where sentence structures could be improved for clarity.

Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5/6
The vocabulary is appropriate and demonstrates a good grasp of the language. However, some repetition and lack of variety in word choice could be improved to enhance the essay's overall quality.

Overall, the essay makes a reasonably coherent argument, although it could benefit from better paragraph organization and smoother connectivity between ideas. The language and grammar are mostly sound, but a more diverse vocabulary would enhance the expression. Addressing the gaps in evidence and strengthening the logical reasoning would make the essay more compelling.


sv2023 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994, pls rate my essay.

Q- "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 are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses, using the support that owners House of Beef restaurant are millionaires while owners of Good Earth café which is a vegetarian place are just making a modest living. The argument also uses as support the fact that Heart’s Delight, an organic fruits and vegetable seller in 1960s, has started selling a wide variety of cheeses with high butterfat content. Stated in this way, the argument reveals example of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence this argument has very weak legs to stand upon.
First, the argument conveniently looks over what the source of income/wealth is for owners of House of Beef while using the economic status of the House of Beef owners as proof that people are eating red meet in huge amounts. What if the House of Beef restaurant is in deep debt because of very low sales and the millionaire status of House of Beef owners is because of their generational wealth? The argument also never bothers to dive into what actually are the customers of House of Beef eating when they visit the restaurant. Are they really only eating red meat in huge amounts or does red meat constitute a very small part of the total volume of orders at House of Beef? Had the author even touched upon the aforementioned points, it would have been a much stronger one. In the absence of convincing answers to these questions, the argument’s claims come across as a stretch.
Secondly, the author also uses economic status of owners of Good Earth Café and the selection of cheeses available at Heart’s Delight as support for their argument that people’s eating habits have gone down the drain. Again, using the economic status of owners of Good Earth Café as a yardstick to measure the eating habits of its patrons is a perfect example of flawed reasoning. The author never once gives any support to their argument that the eating patterns of its customers are the reason for decline of Good Earth Café. It could also very well be the case that other vegetarian cafes in the vicinity might be flourishing but Good Earth has lost customers because of its shoddy service, high prices or any other similar reason. Also, the author uses the presence of selection of cheeses in Heart’s Delight as another proof that now people are indulging in high butterfat content cheeses. This is another assumption for which the author provides no evidence. There is no correlation demonstrated by the author between presence of the cheese section in Heart’s Delight and increase in cheese consumption by the people coming to Heart’s Delight.
There are many questions that have been left unanswered by the author. Had the author answered questions such as how indicative are the trends in these three stores of the eating habits of people as a whole in the town/country where these stores are present, are the stores similar to these stores also experiencing the same things as mentioned by the author and how many people out of the total have actually increased their consumption of red meat and cheese, they could have definitely made this argument much more convincing
Finally, the holes in this argument are many in number and massive in size. The author must procure evidence for the assumptions they use to reach the conclusion. Failure to mention several key factors that are crucial to assess the merits and demerits of the argument leaves to argument open to debate.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2022
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Send PM
In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994
Please can you rate my submission for AWA, Thanks in advance!

My Essay:

The argument presented in the article claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regualting their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, the conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that few stores have now started selling wide range of cheese or the owners of such stores are much mroe wealthier.

First, the argument readily claims that the Heart's Delight store has a wide selection of cheeses because people are buiying it more than the organic fruits and vegetables that the store contains. However, there is no fact or numbers that could prove that sales of cheese has excedded that of fresh fruits and vegtables. The author fails to mention the preferences of people who come to such stores. There can be multiple reason for introducing a new varitey of food, maybe because people ocassional like to have cheese with their food and would prefer to go to stores where all items are avilable at one place.

Second, the argument could have been much clearer if it provide the stats of the sales of The House of beef restaurant compared to the old vegetarian restaurant. Since no numbers are there to prove the one is better than the later, it can also be assumed the maybe the old restaurant's onwer are also millionaries but choose to live a simple life. Also, in case of lifestyle of the owners of old vegetarian restaurant compared to that of the owners of the new House of Beef it can be becuase the later owners have multiple business apart of this or they might be rich from the starting. In fact it not at all clear,

Finally, the argument faisl to mention one of the key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated, namely if sales of cheese at Hart's Delight store or sales of red meat at the House of beef restaurant has increased or decreased. Without this information the argument remains unsunstaniated and open to debate. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situatons, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [1]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5 out of 6

Coherence and Connectivity: 5/6
Your essay displays a reasonable coherence in presenting your points. The ideas generally flow logically, but there are a few instances where better transitions could be used to enhance the overall connectivity.

Word Structure: 5/6
Your writing effectively conveys your ideas, but there are some grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions. Strive for more varied sentence structures and better grammar to enhance the clarity and precision of your writing.

Paragraph Structure and Formation: 5/6
Your essay follows a basic paragraph structure, but some paragraphs could be more focused and organized. Consider breaking down longer paragraphs to create a smoother progression of ideas.

Language and Grammar: 5/6
While your writing is generally clear, there are noticeable grammatical errors and awkward phrasing throughout the essay. Proofreading and revising for grammar and syntax would greatly improve the overall readability and coherence.

Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5/6
Your vocabulary usage is sufficient, but there is room for improvement in terms of word choice and expression. Aim for more precise and sophisticated vocabulary to elevate the overall quality of your essay.

Overall Impression:
Your essay attempts to analyze the given argument and provides valid points to support your assessment. However, it is hindered by grammatical errors, unclear sentence structures, and a few instances of repetition. With improved language use, organization, and sentence construction, your essay could present a stronger analysis.


james3000 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994
Please can you rate my submission for AWA, Thanks in advance!

My Essay:

The argument presented in the article claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regualting their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, the conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that few stores have now started selling wide range of cheese or the owners of such stores are much mroe wealthier.

First, the argument readily claims that the Heart's Delight store has a wide selection of cheeses because people are buiying it more than the organic fruits and vegetables that the store contains. However, there is no fact or numbers that could prove that sales of cheese has excedded that of fresh fruits and vegtables. The author fails to mention the preferences of people who come to such stores. There can be multiple reason for introducing a new varitey of food, maybe because people ocassional like to have cheese with their food and would prefer to go to stores where all items are avilable at one place.

Second, the argument could have been much clearer if it provide the stats of the sales of The House of beef restaurant compared to the old vegetarian restaurant. Since no numbers are there to prove the one is better than the later, it can also be assumed the maybe the old restaurant's onwer are also millionaries but choose to live a simple life. Also, in case of lifestyle of the owners of old vegetarian restaurant compared to that of the owners of the new House of Beef it can be becuase the later owners have multiple business apart of this or they might be rich from the starting. In fact it not at all clear,

Finally, the argument faisl to mention one of the key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated, namely if sales of cheese at Hart's Delight store or sales of red meat at the House of beef restaurant has increased or decreased. Without this information the argument remains unsunstaniated and open to debate. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situatons, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2023
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994,
Can you please rate my essay? Thanks in advance.

The argument claims that people are not as concerned about their intake of read meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. It provides backing to this conclusion by providing examples of some stores. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument 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 people are consuming red meat and fatty cheeses by providing examples of some stores that sell them. The author mentions Heart Delight which is a store selling organic fruits and vegetables, whole-grain flours and a wide selection of cheeses high in butterfat content. Just because the store has a wide selection of cheese, it is not implied that people go into the store to buy cheese. It is entirely possible that people go into the store to purchase fruits and vegetables. A large proportion of the store’s sales can come from the sale of fruits and vegetables, and organic whole-grain flours. The argument would have been much clearer if the author had provided information regarding the sales of the store.

Second, the argument claims that by comparing the owners of an old vegetarian café and the owners of a non-vegetarian restaurant, it can conclude that more people are buying meat. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. The argument, by comparing the earnings of the two owners, assumes that the non-vegetarian restaurant House of Beef makes more money by selling meat. It is entirely possible that the restaurant House of Beef is famous for an item that does not contain any meat at all and makes most of its revenue from the sale of that particular item. The argument does not provide any insights into the kinds of food famous in the two restaurants and assumes that meat sells more than vegetarian food.

Third, the argument readily assumes that the owners of House of Beef make their money from the restaurant itself. The assumption lacks foundation and has several flaws. For instance, the owners of the restaurant could be millionaires even before setting up the restaurant or their primary source of income can be any other business or profession. The argument would have been much clearer if the author had presented additional information regarding the income of the owners.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess a situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [0]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5.5
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity, as it effectively progresses from one point to another, addressing different aspects of the argument's flaws. The points are logically connected, allowing the reader to follow the author's analysis.

Word structure: 5.5
The word structure is generally strong, with varied sentence lengths and structures. The essay effectively communicates the author's points and analysis without excessive wordiness.

Paragraph structure and formation: 5
The essay is organized into paragraphs, each addressing a different flaw in the argument. The paragraphs have clear topic sentences and discuss the flaws in detail. However, the essay could benefit from slightly more varied paragraph lengths and transitions between paragraphs for smoother flow.

Language and Grammar: 5
The language and grammar are strong, with only a few minor errors that do not significantly hinder comprehension. The essay effectively conveys the author's ideas and analysis using accurate grammar and appropriate vocabulary.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5
The vocabulary and word expression are appropriate and convey the author's points effectively. While there are no major issues, slightly more advanced vocabulary could enhance the essay's overall impact.

Overall, the essay presents a well-structured analysis of the argument's weaknesses, highlighting questionable assumptions and providing alternative explanations. The writing is clear and coherent, though minor improvements in paragraph transitions and vocabulary could further enhance its effectiveness. The essay falls between 5 and 6 on the scoring scale, with a score of 5.5 being most appropriate.


jatin_muppiri_17 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994,
Can you please rate my essay? Thanks in advance.

The argument claims that people are not as concerned about their intake of read meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. It provides backing to this conclusion by providing examples of some stores. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument 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 people are consuming red meat and fatty cheeses by providing examples of some stores that sell them. The author mentions Heart Delight which is a store selling organic fruits and vegetables, whole-grain flours and a wide selection of cheeses high in butterfat content. Just because the store has a wide selection of cheese, it is not implied that people go into the store to buy cheese. It is entirely possible that people go into the store to purchase fruits and vegetables. A large proportion of the store’s sales can come from the sale of fruits and vegetables, and organic whole-grain flours. The argument would have been much clearer if the author had provided information regarding the sales of the store.

Second, the argument claims that by comparing the owners of an old vegetarian café and the owners of a non-vegetarian restaurant, it can conclude that more people are buying meat. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. The argument, by comparing the earnings of the two owners, assumes that the non-vegetarian restaurant House of Beef makes more money by selling meat. It is entirely possible that the restaurant House of Beef is famous for an item that does not contain any meat at all and makes most of its revenue from the sale of that particular item. The argument does not provide any insights into the kinds of food famous in the two restaurants and assumes that meat sells more than vegetarian food.

Third, the argument readily assumes that the owners of House of Beef make their money from the restaurant itself. The assumption lacks foundation and has several flaws. For instance, the owners of the restaurant could be millionaires even before setting up the restaurant or their primary source of income can be any other business or profession. The argument would have been much clearer if the author had presented additional information regarding the income of the owners.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess a situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2023
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Please evaluate my essay

The basis of the argument that people in general are not concerned on about the consumption of fatty cheese and red intake based on the comparison of two cafe, where the vegetarian cafe is having a modest earning but the meat cafe owners are millionaires, is flawed due to several reasons.

Firstly the portion of the argument where the Good earth Cafe is having modest living is concluded on the basis that people are not enjoying dishes made from organic vegetables and hence their living is less compared to House of Beef. However it is flawed because there are several reasons as to why the dishes of the vegetarian cafe are disliked by the consumer. In order to know to investigate further, it is essential to know the answer of the following questions: How is the taste, quality and hygiene of food? What is the price of the dish? Do they make food from organic vegetables or those fertilized with synthetic chemicals? What was their profit curve a decade back?If they are preparing food from vegetables fertilized with synthetic chemicals, there is a high probability that people will not prefer them or if they keep minimal profit due to high price of organic vegetables, they are likely to earn less

Secondly the owners of the House of Beef Cafe are said to millionaires when it is located just across the street. However, just assuming the fact that huge consumption of the red meat by the people, it is flawed. There can be several reasons why they are millionaires. The price charged per dish of meat could be large, giving them huge profit. Owners might have a different source of income altogether which makes them millionaires. Either way, this argument is flawed because this prompt provides no information on the source of income of the owners or reliable evidence which shows that people consuming huge amounts in the last 10 years of red meat increased their profits.

Thirdly, the fact that Heart's Delight sells organic fruits and vegetables along with fatty cheeses do not indicate the inclination of people towards the purchase of fatty cheese. Fatty cheese might attract a different set of consumer base who are fond of cheese. However this does not indicate that the majority of the consumers in the store are buyers of cheese and not organic food materials. It is also not mentioned whether the sale of cheese started in 1960 or just a decade earlier thus contradicting the prompt.

To conclude, the prompt lacks reliable information and evidence at various portions thus not being able to establish that people are not concerned about red meat and fatty cheese intake during the last decade.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33997 [0]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
Expert Reply
AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and Connectivity: 5.5
Overall, the essay maintains good coherence and connectivity between ideas. It follows a logical structure, with clear transitions between different points. However, there are a few instances where the flow of ideas could be smoother, particularly in the opening sentence and between paragraphs.

Word Structure: 5
The essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of word structure. It uses a variety of sentence structures and vocabulary, but there are occasional issues with sentence clarity and word choice. Some sentences could be revised for greater clarity and precision.

Paragraph Structure and Formation: 5
The essay effectively employs paragraph structure and formation. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point and contains a clear topic sentence. However, there are instances where the paragraphs could be more concise, and the essay as a whole could benefit from more efficient organization.

Language and Grammar: 5.5
The essay generally displays good language and grammar usage. It effectively conveys ideas and maintains a formal tone. There are some minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could be improved for better clarity and readability.

Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5
The essay employs a reasonable range of vocabulary and word expression. It effectively communicates the points but could benefit from more precise and varied word choices in some places to enhance the overall quality of the writing.

Overall, this essay provides a well-reasoned critique of the argument, addressing its flaws and providing alternative explanations. With some minor improvements in coherence, word structure, and vocabulary, it could achieve an even higher score.


svelaga wrote:
Please evaluate my essay

The basis of the argument that people in general are not concerned on about the consumption of fatty cheese and red intake based on the comparison of two cafe, where the vegetarian cafe is having a modest earning but the meat cafe owners are millionaires, is flawed due to several reasons.

Firstly the portion of the argument where the Good earth Cafe is having modest living is concluded on the basis that people are not enjoying dishes made from organic vegetables and hence their living is less compared to House of Beef. However it is flawed because there are several reasons as to why the dishes of the vegetarian cafe are disliked by the consumer. In order to know to investigate further, it is essential to know the answer of the following questions: How is the taste, quality and hygiene of food? What is the price of the dish? Do they make food from organic vegetables or those fertilized with synthetic chemicals? What was their profit curve a decade back?If they are preparing food from vegetables fertilized with synthetic chemicals, there is a high probability that people will not prefer them or if they keep minimal profit due to high price of organic vegetables, they are likely to earn less

Secondly the owners of the House of Beef Cafe are said to millionaires when it is located just across the street. However, just assuming the fact that huge consumption of the red meat by the people, it is flawed. There can be several reasons why they are millionaires. The price charged per dish of meat could be large, giving them huge profit. Owners might have a different source of income altogether which makes them millionaires. Either way, this argument is flawed because this prompt provides no information on the source of income of the owners or reliable evidence which shows that people consuming huge amounts in the last 10 years of red meat increased their profits.

Thirdly, the fact that Heart's Delight sells organic fruits and vegetables along with fatty cheeses do not indicate the inclination of people towards the purchase of fatty cheese. Fatty cheese might attract a different set of consumer base who are fond of cheese. However this does not indicate that the majority of the consumers in the store are buyers of cheese and not organic food materials. It is also not mentioned whether the sale of cheese started in 1960 or just a decade earlier thus contradicting the prompt.

To conclude, the prompt lacks reliable information and evidence at various portions thus not being able to establish that people are not concerned about red meat and fatty cheese intake during the last decade.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts