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

Question

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

This argument contends that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating theur intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on two different 
obserations by the author. While the author's conclusion may be ultimately correct, the logic the author uses to arrive at his conclusion is certainly weak. As such,
I cannot fully agree with this argument as it is presented.

Firstly, the fact that Heart's Delight offer a wide selection of high butterfat cheeses does not immediately imply that sales volume for these products is high. There 
could be multiple reasons why Heart's Delight offer such a wide selection of high butterfat cheeses even if their sales volume are not high. For example, it is certainly
possible that the profit margin per unit of these products is so high that selling only a marginal volume of them will justify offering such a large selection at
Heart's Delight even though the sales volume is not high. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that sales volume of these high butterfat cheese were high, the 
argument did not present any evidence that these high butterfat content cheese were consumed by a large proportion of the population. Specifically, the possibility
that a small percentage of the population accounts for the vast majority of the consumption of these high butterfat cheeses. If this were the case, then the author's
argument that people are not as concerned about the consumption of fatty cheese as they were a decade ago would be proved false.

Secondly, the fact that the owners of the House of Beef are millionaires while the owners of the Good Earth Cafe are making a modest living does not directly support
the author's argument. The author had neglected to mention the product mix of the House of Beef. While the name of the restaurant implies that this establishment
is well-known for its beef products, this by no means proves that patrons of this restaurant only purchase beef products, or even purchase beef products mostly. For instance, 
patrons of the House of Beef may favor non-red-meat products on its menu. Also, the author failed to mention the profit margin per item in both the Good Earth Cafe and 
the House of Beef. It is certainly possible that the main profit driver of the House of Beef is something other than its red-meat products. As an example, the House
of Beef may have acquired an alcoholic beverage license, and generate most of its profits through sales of alcohol. In such an event, the mere fact that the House
of Beef is more profitable than the Good Earth Cafe does not indicate the lack of concern for regulating intake of red meat.

Finally, no evidence was presented on if the population sampled in this study is representative of the population in general. If this were not the case, then the
author's inference of the general population based on his observation of this skewed sample will be invalid.

Having said that, the author's argument is not entirely without merit. However, to strengthen his argument, it would be much more convincing if the author had
included more evidence to prove the validity of his observations. For example, the author could explain why the population sampled in this study is indicative
of the population in general. The author may also wish to explain how the profit margins of the Good Earth Cafe and the House of Beef directly relates to the amount of 
red-meat consumed by the population under study. If these additional pieces of information were presented, a better picture of the entire situation will be painted,
and his conclusion may be logically deduced from his observations.

In sum, I cannot agree with the author's conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and 
fatty cheese based on the argument as it is oresented right now. The author neglected to show that the fact that Heart's Delight offers a wide selection of 
fatty cheese means that a large proportion of the population consumes fatty cheeses. The author also did not show how the higher profit margin of the House of Beef when
conpared to the Good Earth Cafe means that the population under study consumes more red meat than a decade ago. As such, I am unable to concur with the author's conclusion 
unless he further supports his arguments with the additional pieces of information I mentioned.

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Great essay, Newbie - I can't see this essay getting you anything less than a 5.5. It was:

1) Well organized into a clear introduction and conclusion with well-developed and structured support paragraphs
2) Well thought-out with on-topic, insightful critiques of the argument
3) In-line with the entire question asked of you in these essays (point out assumptions and weaknesses, offer suggestions for strengthening, etc.)

If I could offer a slight suggestion or two for improvement, I'd say:

1) You may be able to "set the scene" a little bit better by rephrasing the prompt before you get to the beginning "this argument...". Maybe something like: "In a recent cuisine article, the author claims that..." It's a subtle difference but has a more heightened sense of audience that "the GMAT is making me write this", and may demonstrate a little bit more command of written English.

2) Your third support paragraph is a bit asymmetrical with the rest in terms of length...you may have gone even too much into detail on paragraphs 2 and 3 and left the 4th without enough time. I don't want to mess with your writing style at all, but if you worry about timing, know that 3-4 sentence per paragraph is more than enough to make your point and move on, so you could stand to tighten up a bit to save time for the end of the essay.

Overall, great work! I actually enjoyed reading this one!

newbie123 · Answer

Dear Brian,
 Thanks for your encouragement. I just took the GMAT two days ago, and am anxiously awaiting my AWA scores. Hopefully, everything will turn out well.

Thanks!

Newbie

UmairChishti · Answer

Please rate my essay as well. Same topic!!

The write has made a claim that people are not concerned about their intake of read meat and fatty cheese. Firstly, this claim is not supported by any evidence. Secondly the evidence provided for his claim is either incomplete or misses many critical aspects.

The writer has made a claim that people are not concerned about their intake of read meat and fatty cheese as they were a decade ago. Firstly the writer needs to establish that what is he referring to when he talks about "people". Is he referring to the inhabitants of a certain city e.g. London, or some country etc.? Secondly to support this claim the writer first needs to show what was the consumption per person of read meat a decade ago and what is it now. Without making such a comparison the writer's claim is not establlished. Secondly he can do a survey of people and ask their opinion of what they think about the healthy food options (organic fruits, vegetable etc.) vs read meat and fatty cheese. This will also give him an idea about whether people are actually concerned as well, irrespective of their consumption. Because people can be genuinely concerned but might still be consuming read meat and fatty cheese because of factors like availability, price etc. If there are few shops that provide organic fruit and it is expensive as well as compared to red meat, although unlikely, will make people prefer read meat and fatty cheese over organic fruit and vegetables

Secondly the writer supports him claim by giving two examples. One is of Heart's Delight. A store that originally started selling organic fruits and vegetables but then also offered cheese. Firstly the writer cannot conclude any thing on people's preference based on one or few shops. He has to take a large sample to justify his claim. For example if he is talking about a city that has a 100,00 shops divided into 100 localities, he needs to take atleast one large shop per locality to have a representative sample size. Secondly He needs to consider what is the revenue of this shop that is coming from organic fruits and vegetables and what is coming from cheese. This will give an idea about people's preference who visit this particular shop. Secondly the writer needs to look at other variables that might have led to this shop offering cheese. For example, they might have found a low cost supplier of cheese. So without considering all these factors that writer cannot support his claim

The second example he gives if of two shops, Good Earth Cafe and House beef. He claims that Good Earth Cafe is making a modest living and House Beef has become millionaires which proves that people are not concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheese. Here again the writer is relying on faulty assumptions and missing important points which are necessary to establish this claim. Firstly this Cafe is located next door to another shop, Heart's Delight that is selling the similar products (organic fruits, vegetables etc.). It might be the case that people are buying from Heart's Delight and Heart's Delight is making a lot of money from it's organic food section: Much more then the Beef shop. Secondly there might be many shops in that locaility that are selling organic food and this Beef Shop might be the only one in the locality. So as stated above, the writer needs to take a larger sample size to establish high arguments. Thirdly their could be other reasons for poor sale of the Good Earth Cafe like poor food quality etc.

To make a robust and sound argument the writer needs to do two things. Firstly he needs to establish his argument. This will invovle defining what is he referring to as "people". Gathering data and interviewing people to establish people are not concerned and comparing this to data and opinion a decade ago. Secondly he needs to increase the sample size of the stores and look at other reasons why certain stores might not be performing well. Only then he can make this claim

sanchitbhatia · Answer

Request you please rate my AWA also:

The author of the article has tried to link people's interest in health, through the food they intake, with the wealth generated by owner of a Beef store as against the perished condition of owners of vegetarian restaurant. Also, the author has assumed that presence of high butterfact content cheese in an organic store is an indicator that people prefer high fat content cheese over healthy organic fruits and vegetables.

The author's argument is flawed at various levels and the biggest amongst them is to account wealth of owners of House of Beef to high sales that they are having to this store. Major flaw of this argument is the author's assumption that the owners became rich because of high sales and profitability of this store itself. There is a possibility that the owners' were already rich even before the store opened. Also, there is a possibility that this store is part of multi-city multi store chain and hence owners, even if they became rich because of this store, are rich because of the economies of scale they persue.

Another aspect that author of this article has ignored is the market competition and profitability of an individual store. The author has not discussed about competition that organic food and vegetarian restaurant face in their market. There is a possibility that both these stores are located in a market wherein there are many chains offering similar product and hence the competition is not allowing the owners to make excessive profit. Also, author has ignored the possibility that there is a very small market of high butterfat content cheese and Heart's Delight owner want to tap this market too along with the high organic food sales that he do.

Furthermore, the author has ignored the possibility that quality of meat at House of Beef is so superior that it has finished all the competitors in the market and hence the owner is able to make supernormal profit for the store.

Lastly, the author is basis his decision without taking into consideration the sales generated by individual stores. There is a possibility that the organic food store as well as the vegetarian restaurant are making strong sales but they are not able to manage their stores properly and hence they have low profitability. Also, high butterfat content cheese may be a high profitability item and hence Heart's Delight owner has decided to offer it as product to improve his profitability.

In conclusion, it can be argued that the author fails to provide any evidence to support his conclusion. The conclusion has various assumptions, which if interpreted otherwise can lead to very different reasons for the current state of things in the three stores discussed. It is therefore essential that author provide more inputs on his rationale before a conslusion can be arrived at.

geometric · Answer

I took a stab at this essay here:

"The author of the magazine article on trends and lifestyles failed to support their conclusion that people are, in general, not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. In developing their argument, the author cited two isolated examples, both of which require very questionable assumptions to be made in order for them to support the conclusion, and neither of which support a sweeping generalization across populations and time. As a result, both the line of reasoning and use of evidence are insufficient in this argument.

The author's first example about Heart's Delight, presumably a grocery store, offers very weak support of the author's conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. It appears that the author's intention in using this example is for the reader to infer that Heart's Delight has only recently added its wide selection of cheeses with high butterfat content, that it added those cheeses in order to meet perceived consumer demand, that consumers are in fact purchasing a significant amount of those cheeses, that those purchases are substituting for what would have been purchases of organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours, and that price does not play a role in those consumer preferences. These questionable assumptions are required in order for this example to support the conclusion. However, many of them are very questionable indeed. For instance, there is nothing in the article excerpt that indicates that these cheeses are a recent addition to the store. It's possible that Heart's Delight has been selling them since the 1960s. It is also possible that they sell very poorly, and in fact, it is possible that they sell more poorly today than a decade ago. It is also possible that they sell well today, but that consumers purchase them because the average price of the organic food times has increased. Clearly, this example is a poor one and does not support the author's conclusion.

The author's second example is similarly inadequate in that it requires several questionable assumptions in order to support the conclusion. Here, the author notes that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, and old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires. Again, it is helpful to consider the author's intended inference with this example. The author appears to intend for the reader to infer that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe have seen falling consumer demand but still have sufficient demand to make a modest living, that the business expertise or lack thereof of the Good Earth Cafe owners has no impact on their recent fortunes, that the new House of Beef across the street is experiencing explosive consumer demand, and the fact that the owners of the House of Beef are millionaires is directly a result of the new location's success. These are just some of the many questionable assumptions that are required in order for this example to support the conclusion. Like the previous example about Heart's Delight, almost all of these questionable assumptions cannot be reasonably made. For instance, it is very possible that the new House of Beef is a money-losing proposition that is unable to sell its beef and that the new owners are simply millionaires from a prior success. Even in the event that all of these questionable assumptions are true, this example does not indicate in any strong way that there has been a shift in consumer tastes over the last decade. Clearly, then, this example does not support the author's conclusion.

In summary, this argument is very poorly reasoned. Its line of reasoning requires highly questionable assumptions and additional premises in order to successfully reach the conclusion. Perhaps the greatest weakness of this argument is its lack of appropriate example and evidence. For instance, a survey performed every year that tracks both people's stated concerns about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as well as their purchases would greatly enhance the ability of the reader to evaluate this conclusion. By referencing both the concerns themselves as well as the actions taken by consumers, the author would be able to dismiss alternative explanations with authority. Ultimately, however, the conclusion presented here may be true, but the point is that it is impossible based on this argument to evaluate that conclusion."

Himanshuv0 · Answer

Please rate my essay. This is my first attempt.

The argument states a general fact that now a days, people are not concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty acid. In order to substantiate this claim, the argument provides the example of the Heart’ Delight store and House of Beef. Stated this way, the argument manipulates the general fact and reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. Moreover, the argument fails to mention the several key factors and important considerations that are necessary to evaluate. Furthermore, the conclusion of the argument relies on implicit assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws. 
First, the argument states a very generalized fact about the people that they are not concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. The argument is stretch because it fails to consider that people are now more aware about their nutritional need of their body than they were a decade ago. For example, now a day people are more involved in the body building, therefore, to sustain that much exercise they are consuming higher fatty acids foods. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the data about the increasing number of diseases due to intake of cheese or red meat. 
Second, the argument states an example of the store Heart’s delight that earlier this store used to sell fruits and vegetable only, but now it is selling cheese with high butter content as well. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between store selling cheese and people buying cheese. To illustrate, Organico Store that has started selling candies along with the vitamin supplements has stopped selling the candies because people were not buying the candies as they were about their health. 
Finally, the argument again states a very weak example of House of Store to substantiate its conclusion. The arguments try to contrast between making a modest living by the owners Good Earth Café and making millions by the owners of House of Beef store. This contrast is flawed because it fails to consider the other business opportunities that owners of House of Beef has sought to make million dollars. What if owners of House of Beefs are millionaires prior to the opening of their store?
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 about the stores and about the awareness of people. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case the revenue of the stores by selling cheese and meat will help in evaluating the argument. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

I assume the following is the prompt your essay is based on

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

If this is the case below is the evaluation response

AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6!

I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.

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: 4.5/5  
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!

PS: Always post the prompt with your essay

Good Luck

NZGmatter · Answer

Hi team, Could you please have a review of my answer for this question

. Thanks in advance for the help! 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 the Heart’s Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960’s, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.” Answer: The argument claims that people are not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were 10 years ago. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation, and reveals examples of poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and contains several flaws. Firstly the argument puts forward as evidence the fact that Heart's delight (an organic store) sells a wide selection of cheeses made with a high butterfat content. This does not provide any support to the argument's main claim as no data is provided in changing trends of the amount of cheese turnover of the last decade from this establishment. Just because the fatty cheeses are available for purchase at a health store provides no indication of whether this is as the result of a trend from consumers choosing to consume a higher amount of the product. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that Heart's Delight had only started selling these fatty cheeses for the first time in their history in the last decade as a result of changing consumer preferences. Second, the argument claims validity to its main statement by demonstrating that the owners of the new House of Beef are millionares whereas the owners of Good Earth Cafe are merely making a modest living. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the change in consumer habits and income of the two stores. For example, just because Good Earth Cafe is vegetarian, it could still have fatty cheeses on its menu. What is the quality of the food at this cafe? what is its business model? without answers to these questions it is unfair to put this example forward as evidence. The argument also claims that the owners of the House of Beef are millionares resulting from the change in trend of consumers. We are not giving any background on this. Were the owners already millionares prior to purchasing this facility? We are also not told what House of Beef actually is. Is it a butchery or a restaurant? Is red meat its main income source? If the argument had gone into more detail around these unknowns then perhaps the evidence could have been used fairly and the argument would have been a lot more convincing. Finally, the argument fails to mention a number of key points of evidence. What is defined as regulating one's uptake of red meat and fatty cheeses? Is this statement only applicable to a certain region, or are we speaking in global terms? How has the per capita consumption of the mentioned commodities changed during the last decade? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than substansive evidence. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strentghened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts pertaining to the pieces of evidence that were presented. In order to asses the merits of a certain claim, it is paramount to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case what the definition of regulating one's intake is, what area the argument is claiming about and what proportional changes have been observed in cheese and red meat intakes. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5.5 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: 2.5/5   
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: 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

jiggoletta · Answer

Hello everybody,

could someone please rate my answer to 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 the Heart’s Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960’s, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.”

Answer:

The authors line of argument suggests that people are less concerned about their food
selection and the associated health implications. The provided evidence implies that this
is the logical consequence of grocery stores expanding their product portfolio and 
vegetarian restaurants making less money than steakhouses. These implications are unlikely
to be true, in which case the argument is seriosly compromised.

The first evidence provided by the author states that a organic grocery store expanded
its product portfolio over the course of its operation by adding cheese that is supposedly
unsuited for a organic grocery store. This argument fails to address the issue
that there are no grocery stores which are successful that keep the same product portfolio
over the course of a couple of decades. Stores need to adapt accordingly to customer 
demand, this fact is not enough to implicate that people are in general less concerned 
about their food selection. Even if the people who demand cheese with high butterfat content
are less concerned, there are still people who go to the same grocery store but are very
much concerned about their food selection.

The author's second provided evidence implies that since a steakhouse generates more 
profit than a vegetarian restaurant, people must be less concerned about their food selection.
This argument fails to recognize that a vegetarian restaurant serves a specific group
of customers which is far outnumbered by people who don't follow a special diet - like
people who eat meat. It is therefore logical that a restaurant who serves a bigger group
of customers is more likely to generate excess profit than a restaurant who serves a smaller
group of customers. This fact is not enough to imply that the general public is less 
concerned about their food selection. It could be in fact that the vegetarian restaurant makes
much more money than compared to when they started their business because more people 
became vegetarian, but the argument fails to address this issue.

To sum it up, the author provides little evidence to support his argument of people being
generally less concerned about their food selection. The evidence given fails to address
significant issues. More data or more specific information would be needed in order to
make the evidence and the author's argument more significant.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 3.5 - 4 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 3/5  
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: 1.5/5   
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: 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

Saikadali · Answer

Please rate my essay. This is my first attempt
 
Argument:
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
 
Analysis:
The argument claims that the people are not concerned about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheese now than they were before. The author based this on some of the examples shown based on their profits, Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Although the underlying issue has some merit, because of lack of sufficient data, vague language and false reasoning, the argument remains flawed and unsubstantiated.
First, the author assumes readily that people in present are not concerned about the intake of fatty cheese and red meat as they were in the past. This is a stretch of imagination. For example, a person intakes meat and fatty cheese but does exercises accordingly still stays healthy. Clearly, the author didn’t provide any statistical data but generalised the issue at hand. The author could have strengthened this by providing the data about consumption of red meat per person from past to present.
Second, the author assumes that the owners of Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant , are making modest living because they have marginal profits for their restaurants. This is correlation flaw. For example, the owner of Good Earth Café is a strong believer of living simple life, even with millions of profits he would live a modest life. Clearly, the author's correlation of modest living to profits is flawed. The author could have explicitly mentioned by providing the number of customers, cost of maintenance and cost of items and others to determine the profits of restaurant.
Third, the author assumes readily that the House of Beef across the street is billionaires . This is a stretch of imagination. For example, the owners are billionaires because of their vast portfolio in other businesses irrespective of their profits from the House of Beef restaurant. Clearly, the author has not taken any of this into consideration. The author could have strengthened it by giving profits of the House of Beef.
In conclusion, the author presents an interesting but flawed argument. He failed to consider facts that have a significant bearing on his claims. Although his argument is categorically unconvincing, the author could have strengthened his argument if he had presented solid statistical data, evidence and facts. In order to assess an argument one should have full information about all factors. Without this information, the argument remains flawed and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5.5 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: 4.5/5   
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

rwolfson14 · Answer

AWA Evaluation Request -- please and thank you!

The magazine article argues that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. This argument is flawed for numerous reasons. First, the article reaches this conclusion based on an unjustified assumption that a trend within a few stores is representative of a broader trend within the larger population. Second, the article lacks any justification that the availability of red meat and fatty cheeses in stores is indicative of people’s concern over intake of those items. Lastly, the article assumes that today there is the basis for the same concern a decade ago about consuming red meat and fatty cheeses.

To begin, this argument is vulnerable to criticism that the few stores mentioned may not be representative of trends within the broader population of “people”. For example, Heart’s Delight, Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef may all be located in a town (Town A) where the beef and dairy industry boomed within the past decade. This would mean there is a higher supply of red meat and fatty cheeses for these stores to sell. However, in a town where these industries are not prevalent and imports are expensive (Town B), there may be a lower availability of those items in the store. The article’s argument may be strengthened by specifying which population of “people” it’s referring to (e.g., the people of Town A are not as concerned) and making clear that the stores mentioned were in said town.

Second, the article lacks evidence to assume that the availability of red meat and fatty cheeses in local stores is indicative of people’s concern over intake of those items. For example, Heart’s Delight may have had great success selling fruits, vegetables, and flours in the past, that it had the means to start to offer new products within the past 10 years. However, without additional information, we cannot assume that specifically these products sell as well and that people consume them at all. In the tech industry, Google saw such great success with its suite of software products that it started to expand into hardware (e.g., headphones, phones, speakers). However, these hardware products do not sell well across the population, yet the company continues to offer them. The argument could be strengthened if we had evidence that the increased demand of meats and cheeses from the population led stores to stock these items more readily.
 
Lastly, the article could be strengthened by providing additional justification for why there may have been a shift in concern regarding red meat and fatty cheeses within the past 10 years. Increased availability of these items in stores may be an effect of some cause the passage does not identify. For example, in the past decade, there may have been new scientific research that was released demonstrating that a balanced diet, including red meat and fatty cheeses actually aids muscle growth/increases energy and refutes that it is harmful to overall health. Hence, today, people’s mindset towards intake of these items is completely different than 10 years ago. This is similar to the keto trend in today’s health environment, where people are changing their diet to be dominated by meats and cheeses for claims of enhanced health benefits.

Since the article makes several unjustified assumptions and lacks additional evidence, it fails to make a convincing argument that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 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: 3/5   
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 
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

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards