Hi,
I gave GMAT Prep test today so did write another AWA. Took care of the points mentioned by Kevin and also I believe I used my time well. Would appreciate the inputs.
"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 concludes that people, in general, are less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were 10 years ago. The argument cites couple of instances to derive this conclusion. The argument in it's current form and with the instances quoted is flawed and based on assumptions whose validity can be questioned without much effort.
Firstly, the argument compares general population of 2 different decades on the regulation of their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses without providing any relevant data or information on which this comparison is drawn. The argument has many pitfalls as it makes major assumptions. For example, general population of previous decade may be consuming red meat and fatty cheeses without any regulation and in high quantities. The population of the current decade may be much more aware about the negatives of high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and thus would be regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses manifolds compared to general people of the previous decade. Additionally, the argument assumes that more people buying red meat and fatty cheeses this decade implies that the people of current decade are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.
Secondly, the argument quotes a example of Heart's Delight store. The store now also sells red meat and fatty cheeses along with organic fruits and vegetables. The argument tries to justify it's conclusion based on this example but the argument ignores the possibility of the store increasing it's domain of products and inturn catering to a wider audience which consists of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian population. Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumtion of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so. Moreover, the store may be appealing to a select minority who do not regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and not the people in general.
Thirdly, another example is quoted in the argument to support it's conclusion. Good earth cafe may be making a modest living when compared to the new House of Beef but this in no way implies that people, in general, are less concious about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. There may be a scenario where the Beef House may have greate range of services than the Good Earth Cafe. AFor example, the Beef House may be providing home delivery services which caters to larger audience while Good Earth Cafe does not. Also, there may be a case where the owners of Good Earth cafe are less ambitious and happy with the current operation of their restaurant and may not want to extend their operations which in turn might lead of increased sales and profit. Thus, citing this example to support the conclusion is like comparing apples and oranges.
In conclusion, the argument makes derives a conclusion about people in general about they regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on various assumptions. These assumptions are open to attacks of reasoning and thus make the argument weak and seriously flawed. The argument could have provided relevant data to compare people's views regarding their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses over the decade to support it's claim. Moreover, much more relevant examples may have been much more beneficial in supporting and justifying the currently flawed argument's conclusion.
I gave GMAT Prep test today so did write another AWA. Took care of the points mentioned by Kevin and also I believe I used my time well. Would appreciate the inputs.
"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 concludes that people, in general, are less concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were 10 years ago. The argument cites couple of instances to derive this conclusion. The argument in it's current form and with the instances quoted is flawed and based on assumptions whose validity can be questioned without much effort.
Firstly, the argument compares general population of 2 different decades on the regulation of their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses without providing any relevant data or information on which this comparison is drawn. The argument has many pitfalls as it makes major assumptions. For example, general population of previous decade may be consuming red meat and fatty cheeses without any regulation and in high quantities. The population of the current decade may be much more aware about the negatives of high consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses and thus would be regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses manifolds compared to general people of the previous decade. Additionally, the argument assumes that more people buying red meat and fatty cheeses this decade implies that the people of current decade are less concerned about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses.
Secondly, the argument quotes a example of Heart's Delight store. The store now also sells red meat and fatty cheeses along with organic fruits and vegetables. The argument tries to justify it's conclusion based on this example but the argument ignores the possibility of the store increasing it's domain of products and inturn catering to a wider audience which consists of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian population. Also, this example in no way implies that people would be less concerned about their consumtion of red meat and fatty cheeses as people may be given a choice of buying red meat and fatty cheeses at the store but still they may choose not to do so. Moreover, the store may be appealing to a select minority who do not regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and not the people in general.
Thirdly, another example is quoted in the argument to support it's conclusion. Good earth cafe may be making a modest living when compared to the new House of Beef but this in no way implies that people, in general, are less concious about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. There may be a scenario where the Beef House may have greate range of services than the Good Earth Cafe. AFor example, the Beef House may be providing home delivery services which caters to larger audience while Good Earth Cafe does not. Also, there may be a case where the owners of Good Earth cafe are less ambitious and happy with the current operation of their restaurant and may not want to extend their operations which in turn might lead of increased sales and profit. Thus, citing this example to support the conclusion is like comparing apples and oranges.
In conclusion, the argument makes derives a conclusion about people in general about they regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses based on various assumptions. These assumptions are open to attacks of reasoning and thus make the argument weak and seriously flawed. The argument could have provided relevant data to compare people's views regarding their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses over the decade to support it's claim. Moreover, much more relevant examples may have been much more beneficial in supporting and justifying the currently flawed argument's conclusion.
