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

Hi Sajjad1994, Please review my response for the following prompt:

“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”


Response:

In the given argument, the author claims that people have become less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese as compared to they were about a decade ago. To support this assertion, the author states 2 examples, one of heart’s delight which started selling fruits and vegetables but now has a wide selection of cheese and second of good earth cafe which is a vegetarian restaurant and earns much less as compared to the house of beef just across the street. Though the argument makes some interesting assertions but fails miserably in providing proper support for the assertions. Same is true for given examples as well. Author though supports his assertion with good examples but fails to provide statistical and data support for these examples. As a result of which conclusion drawn from these assertions seems a little far fetched and unsubstantiated. In the subsequent paragraphs, few reasons highlighting the argument flaws and recommendation which can potentially make argument much more convincing have been explained in detail:

Firstly, Author accepts this as a general assertion and doesn’s tell us about the demographic areas. Dietary habits of a society are influenced too much by food availability and demographics. For example, for a state surrounded by ocean, diet will naturally consist of too much seafood because of ready availability. Similarly, for a state with ample farmlands, Grains or vegetables will constitute a major part of that area’s diet. Hence for the examples highlighted, it might be possible that these are from areas where demographics are such that cheese diet/meat diets are naturally supported.

Secondly, the author states 2 examples supporting his conclusion but fails to link how the cheese section or lesser sales are directly correlated to people’s choices. For example, for heart delight, it might be possible that opening a cheese section is just a part of strategy for horizontal expansion and not due to lesser sales of fruits and vegetables because it is very natural for such shops to sell a wide array of products to provide one stop solution for customers. Also It might be possible that though they sell both cheese as well as vegetables, vegetables consitute a much higher chunk of their sales. For the second example, there can be a number of reasons other than cuisine for a restaurant to have lesser sales as compared to another across the street. It might be possible that the other restaurant was opened as a big one from the start only. Also maybe the food of good earth cafe is not that delicious for a veg restaurant or maybe some other factor is responsible for lesser sales like ambience or hygine etc

Thirdly, the examples provided in the argument are too specific to conclude such a general statement. Just Looking at 2 shops, we cannot possibly say that in general people have become less conscious in eating veg products. We would need much more broader and general statistics to substantiate the claims

Overall, the argument has a number of flaws and needs significant data and research support to make it convincing. If the author provides more information about the demographics of examples as well as general demographics that even though vegetables and fruits are readily available, people are still choosing meat/ cheese Or if the author can show decreasing trends from last generation to this generation, the argument would be much better supported. Additionally, for heart delight example, author should compare sales of veg vs cheese products. He should also explore reasons why a separate section of cheese was opened. For the second example, the author can maybe look at the ratings for good earth cafe and also in what conditions and what scale both cafes have been set up. Lastly, giving some general statistics comparing trends in food habits among different demographics across decades will give us a much clearer picture. Without these additional information and support, argument fails to convince users and remains open to debate.

Please grade my essay. Thanks in advance.

The argument claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The argument then states that a store that sells organic fruits and vegetables and a restaurant that serves vegetarian food are performing worse than the restaurant that serves beef across the street. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that just because two restaurants are not performing as well as the one that serves beef, people are not concerned about the consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses. There are several key indicators that can impact the performance of the restaurant. Suppose, both of those restaurants are not well-known and haven’t established any identities, this could be a huge contributing factor for the performance. Also, there lies a possibility that there are other good organic fruits and vegetables restaurants or other good vegetarian restaurants in that specific area. The other possibility is that the neighborhood in which the restaurants are located is primarily a meat-consuming area. Just because sales aren’t up to the mark compared to a beef restaurant in a particular neighborhood, this situation is not representative to the overall population.

Second, the argument compares the concern of people between a decade ago and of people when the argument was written. There is no proper evidence to evaluate whether they were more concerned about the red meat and fatty cheeses consumption a decade ago than they are now. If any evaluating evidence is provided, such as surveys, demographics of the population, and changing habits and trends of people in the last decade, it would provide a solid foundation to the argument.

Finally, the argument says that the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are billionaires. The argument lies on an assumption that the owners became millionaires due to the sales or revenue from this restaurant. However, this might be false as there might be many cases by which they can be millionaires. They might have invested their money, and when the money finally paid off, they might’ve retired. Without proper evidence such as the revenue and profits of the “House of Beef” restaurant and also the income and investment breakup of the owners, the evidence provided in the argument is unsubstantial.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the argument provided certain facts and evidence about the restaurants, the income from the restaurants and how the owners of the beef restaurant became millionaires. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors, Without this information, the argument still might be true but without sufficient evidence, it’s open for debate.

PLEASE RATE MY ESSAY AS WELL! THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!


The argument claims that people are less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they had been a decade ago. This claim is supported by factors such as the statement that stores, like Heart’s Delight, sell a wide variety of cheeses that are considered unhealthy due to their high butterfat content. However, the assumptions made lack relevant and sufficient evidence and fail to take into account several underlying factors of the statements mentioned as evidence which would be critical to make such a claim.

Firstly, the statements mentioned are based entirely on generic assumptions and are not backed by any relevant data about the businesses. For example, quoting that the Good Earth Cafe makes a ‘modest’ living and the owners of House of Beef are ‘millionaires’ seems to be based on initial appearance and personal bias. This fails to include any mention of data that talks about their financial position, the regularity of their sales, the number of operating stores, etc. An understanding of these would be a better way for readers to judge the claims made.

In addition to this, the argument claims that people are not concerned about their red meat and fatty cheese intake solely based on the fact that the Heart’s Delight store chooses to sell a high variety of cheeses with high butterfat content. It fails to mention the number of sales or the consumption rate per person of these products which would serve as better indicators of whether or not the concern is still prevalent among people. For example, the cheese of Heart’s Delight may be sold to a customer who plans to serve it alongside food products that may regulate or cut the fat content of the cheese, causing minimal to no side effects for the ones who consume it. It could also be the case that different types of cheese, which have a greater shelf life, are being purchased to be stored for long-term consumption by the customer.

Finally, the argument also fails to take into account the opinions of a carefully selected sample space of people who have knowledge about or have purchased from either or all of the three stores. For instance, while House of Beef owners are ‘millionaires’ and Good Earth Cafe is making a ‘modest’ living, it could also be the case that customer preferences side with a certain business due to the quality of the products being sold at the stores, apart from just variety or the fact that they may be considered healthy or unhealthy.

In conclusion, the claim that people are not as concerned about regulating their red meat and cheese intake is flawed due to the reasons mentioned above, and is therefore, unconvincing. The gap in the claim made can be bridged by simply taking into account a better understanding of all functioning businesses in the argument, the purpose of purchase by the customers, and the school of thought of other customers. Consequently, the way that the claim can be strengthened is for the author to take steps to carefully assess the underlying factors of the given situation and draw conclusions based on reliable evidence.