PROMPT
The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper."Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject."
In a recent article in the travel section of a newspaper, the author argues that because the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced an unheard of growth, it can be concluded that it was due to recent social changes. This argument is weak seeing that just because over the past 10 years the restaurant industry in Spiessa has grown, does not mean that the surge can be expected to continue in the coming years. While the author's argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects.
Most conspicuously, the argument assumes that because in the past decade the restaurant industry grew, that it could be expected to continue to grow in the coming years. It is entirely possible, however, personal incomes could suddenly decrease the same way they saw an unprecedented increase, forcing people to eat dinner at home. Accordingly, the author should give readers affirmation that a decline in personal incomes could not be possible.
Additionally, the argument fails to account for the fact that if more leisure time is available, it could be possible that people would rather cook themselves instead of going out and spending money at a restaurant. This too, is a gross assumption, as it could very well be that with additional time, people would want to cook healthy meals for themselves. As a result, the author needs to take a poll questioning, on the condition that more recreational time was available, whether people would prefer dining out to cooking for themselves.
Finally, the argument relies on the assumption that single person households are more common and that they would want to have dinner at a restaurant. One cannot deny that an alternative is possible, although couldn't it be plausible that those who are alone would prefer not to disclose the fact that they are alone, and stay home instead? To make a compelling case, the author would need to demonstrate evidence that single people would rather go out than stay in.
In conclusion, the argument that the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced an unheard of growth due to recent social changes is poorly supported and makes a number of critical assumptions. Not only does the author assume that because in the past decade the restaurant industry had grown and is expected to continue to grow in the coming years, but he/she also presupposes that due to more leisure time being available, people would prefer to dine out. In order to make this argument convincing, the author needs to show validation that nothing will stand in the way of the restaurant industry continuing to grow and take a survey questioning whether people prefer dining out to cooking a meal themselves, in order to avoid other speculations.
The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper."Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject."
In a recent article in the travel section of a newspaper, the author argues that because the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced an unheard of growth, it can be concluded that it was due to recent social changes. This argument is weak seeing that just because over the past 10 years the restaurant industry in Spiessa has grown, does not mean that the surge can be expected to continue in the coming years. While the author's argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects.
Most conspicuously, the argument assumes that because in the past decade the restaurant industry grew, that it could be expected to continue to grow in the coming years. It is entirely possible, however, personal incomes could suddenly decrease the same way they saw an unprecedented increase, forcing people to eat dinner at home. Accordingly, the author should give readers affirmation that a decline in personal incomes could not be possible.
Additionally, the argument fails to account for the fact that if more leisure time is available, it could be possible that people would rather cook themselves instead of going out and spending money at a restaurant. This too, is a gross assumption, as it could very well be that with additional time, people would want to cook healthy meals for themselves. As a result, the author needs to take a poll questioning, on the condition that more recreational time was available, whether people would prefer dining out to cooking for themselves.
Finally, the argument relies on the assumption that single person households are more common and that they would want to have dinner at a restaurant. One cannot deny that an alternative is possible, although couldn't it be plausible that those who are alone would prefer not to disclose the fact that they are alone, and stay home instead? To make a compelling case, the author would need to demonstrate evidence that single people would rather go out than stay in.
In conclusion, the argument that the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced an unheard of growth due to recent social changes is poorly supported and makes a number of critical assumptions. Not only does the author assume that because in the past decade the restaurant industry had grown and is expected to continue to grow in the coming years, but he/she also presupposes that due to more leisure time being available, people would prefer to dine out. In order to make this argument convincing, the author needs to show validation that nothing will stand in the way of the restaurant industry continuing to grow and take a survey questioning whether people prefer dining out to cooking a meal themselves, in order to avoid other speculations.
