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

Good Luck

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

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

Good Luck

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.