H!
Can anyone review my essay? Going for the GMAT tomorrow!
Many thanks in advance!
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 ofthe new House of Beef across the street are millionaires.
Essay:
The argument claims that people are currently less concerned about their intake of red meat and cheese based on two reasons. First, a store that was focused on selling fruits and vegetables has started to sell cheese made of butterfat and second, the comparison between the modest life of the owners of a vegetarian cafe and the fact that the owners of the new House of Beef store are millionaires. Stated in this way, the author manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. It reveals examples of poor reasoning and fails to mention several factors in which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which no supporting evidence is provided and is, therefore, weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because the store that was selling organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's has included cheese, it is an indicative that, in general, people are less concerned about regulating its consumption of fatty cheese. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. For example, the store might have included this type of product as an initiative to diversify its portfolio but the majority of its sales might still be vegetables and fruits. Clearly, it could be perfectly plausible that the majority of the store's customers are just buying the old products despite the introduction of the cheese products as customers going t this store is still concerned about its diet. The argument would have been more convincing if it explicitly stated the reasons after the inclusion of the cheese products of the store and the sales performance after the introduction of these products.
Second, the argument tries to draw a correlation between the wealth of the owners of two restaurants and the fact that people are less concerned in regulating the intake of red meat. However, this is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide any evidence to demonstrate such a correlation. To illustrate, the wealth of the owners does not explain at all if the sales performance of the restaurants are comparable. For instance, even when the owners of the vegetarian restaurant have a modest life, their restaurant might be more successful than the House of Beef but because the owners of the later restaurant opened other restaurants and had other business, they might be millionaries because not for the new restaurant but for other businesses. Moreover, the argument states that the restaurant is new, clearly conveying that it is improbable that the owners are millionaries due to the new restaurant. If the argment had provided further information regarding the sales performance of these two restaurants then the argument could have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that people are less interested in regulating its fatty cheese and red meat consumption based on features of three stores. However, it is not clear at all that focusing on the stores is the best way to understand the behavior of the general people. In fact, one should study the preferences of the general people as clearly, three stores are not representative of the general people consumption preferences. Therefore, one is left with unanswered questions that are relevant for which the conclusion of the argument could be evaluated.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if it mentioned all the relevant facts that could help evaluate the conclusion. 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 actual sales performance of the stores and the preferences of the consumers. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.