-
bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
Argument:
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Response:
The excerpt from the article states that increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes during past decade was majorly due to poor nutrition. However, in stating so, the argument does not consider other factors into account. The argument could have been much convincing if it would have considered several other facts in concluding that increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes is majorly due to poor nutrition.
Firstly, the argument states that poor nutrition is the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. Further, it states that this poor nutrition is the case of increase in such cases. In saying so, the argument assumes that most cases reported of adult-onset diabetes is due to poor nutrition only. The argument does not provide any evidence in concluding so. It could be possible that most of the adults does not prefer the low quality food, though available in marked at low prices. The argument would have been more convincing if the author could have provided some evidence on the eating preferences of adults.
Secondly, the author attributes that government's more emphasis on proper nutrition would help them control the quality and vitamin content in food produced by food manufacturers. The argument fails to provide data about prevailing emphasis about the vitamin and protein content laid on food manufacturers by government. If this data would have been provided it would have enabled us to gauge the effectiveness of the government's control over the current emphasis and how effective the future emphasis would be.
Moreover, the argument concludes that if food manufactures include more vitamins and proteins in their vitamins during manufacturing then the nutrient will be intact when it reaches the consumer. The argument fails to consider the packaging. Its possible that food when manufactured has adequate levels of nutrition in it but the food may become foul or loose nutrients during transit due to various reason such as delay in transit, packaging ruptures which would cause the food to interact with air and thus, loose its nutrient. The conclusion could have been more convincing if the author could have elaborated on the after manufacturing process of food by food manufacturers.
Finally, since the argument fails to consider several practical things into account and fails to provide evidence before reaching the conclusion, the argument is a stretch and could not be validated. Thus, the argument appears weak rather than convincing in reaching the conclusion.
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Response:
The excerpt from the article states that increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes during past decade was majorly due to poor nutrition. However, in stating so, the argument does not consider other factors into account. The argument could have been much convincing if it would have considered several other facts in concluding that increase in cases of adult-onset diabetes is majorly due to poor nutrition.
Firstly, the argument states that poor nutrition is the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. Further, it states that this poor nutrition is the case of increase in such cases. In saying so, the argument assumes that most cases reported of adult-onset diabetes is due to poor nutrition only. The argument does not provide any evidence in concluding so. It could be possible that most of the adults does not prefer the low quality food, though available in marked at low prices. The argument would have been more convincing if the author could have provided some evidence on the eating preferences of adults.
Secondly, the author attributes that government's more emphasis on proper nutrition would help them control the quality and vitamin content in food produced by food manufacturers. The argument fails to provide data about prevailing emphasis about the vitamin and protein content laid on food manufacturers by government. If this data would have been provided it would have enabled us to gauge the effectiveness of the government's control over the current emphasis and how effective the future emphasis would be.
Moreover, the argument concludes that if food manufactures include more vitamins and proteins in their vitamins during manufacturing then the nutrient will be intact when it reaches the consumer. The argument fails to consider the packaging. Its possible that food when manufactured has adequate levels of nutrition in it but the food may become foul or loose nutrients during transit due to various reason such as delay in transit, packaging ruptures which would cause the food to interact with air and thus, loose its nutrient. The conclusion could have been more convincing if the author could have elaborated on the after manufacturing process of food by food manufacturers.
Finally, since the argument fails to consider several practical things into account and fails to provide evidence before reaching the conclusion, the argument is a stretch and could not be validated. Thus, the argument appears weak rather than convincing in reaching the conclusion.
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay
