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

Hello all,

I just started studying for the GMAT and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on my essay as the practice exams do not mark the essay portion of the test. Any advice is welcome. Thanks in advance.

The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles:

“In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart’s Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960’s, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”

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


My essay:

The argument being discussed in this news article is that in general people are not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. This argument is based on very weak reasoning. The following two paragraphs will explain why these reasons are weak.

The first piece of evidence the author used was that Heart's Delight started selling cheeses with high butterfat content. However, this does not mean that people are less concerned about regulating their intake of fatty cheeses. The store might have just wanted to expand their inventory selection in order to increase revenue. Also people can buy as much cheese as they want but it does not mean they consume it in high quantities at a time. They could also be buying some of the cheese to give away as a gift or put it out on a tray for a family and friends get together. The multitude of reasons behind people buying cheese weakens the authors argument.

The next piece of evidence the author used in their argument was the fact that a restaurant called House of Beef, which presumably sells meat products, was doing a lot better in terms of revenue than Good Earth Cafe, which is a vegetarian restaurant. Using this evidence to make the assumption people are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses is weak. House of Beef could be doing better for a multitude of reasons such as better management, wider variety of menu options and is better advertised. Also a vegetarian restaurant is a niche restaurant and could be seen as unattractive to someone who isnt a vegetarian. The reason the owners of the new House of Beef restaurant are millionaires could be that they own other restaurants as well and not that they just serve red meat. This assumption that the author made about why the House of Beef is more doing better than the Good Earth Cafe makes for weak evidence for the argument.

Overall, the argument that people are not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on the two pieces of evidence provided is a weak argument. The author uses observational assumptions that have no researched facts behind them. This proves the argument is weak.