-
jainakshita12
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:49 pm
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.â€
The author concludes that the restaurant industry in Spiessa will continue to grow in future.The line of reasoning is based on the evidence gathered from publications that suggest social changes such as rising personal incomes,more leisure time, single person household, and people's interest in gourment food will contribute to this growth.The flaws in the argument are stated below.
First,the argument states that the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth in the past decade. The presupposition that this growth shall continue due to recent social changes creates a paradox. As the changes are recent. they may not necessarily reflect the reason why the restaurant industry boomed in the past decade. Second, social changes such as rising personal incomes and more leisure time may not necessarily mean that restaurants can expect more customers. The increase in personal income may not reflect higher purchasing power. Also, more leisure time could be utilised by people for other activities such as sports, learning arts etc and not essentially for eating at restaurants.Furthermore,the argument states there are a considerable number of single person households in Spiessa.This does not clearly indicate how single persons will prefer eating at restaurants.However,the people's greater interest in gourment food might lead one to believe that the growth is warranted but the argument does not mention how many restaurants serve gourment food.
Third, the author draws the conclusion from a proliferation of publications. The types of these publications are not mentioned in the argument.It could be possible that these evidences are tainted in favor of the restaurant owners.Also,these publication may not have an official standing.
The author can improve his argument by providing more concrete evidence about how the publications reached the conclusion citing the boom in the growth industry.In summary,the argument is flawed as stated in the aforementioned paragraphs.
“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.â€
The author concludes that the restaurant industry in Spiessa will continue to grow in future.The line of reasoning is based on the evidence gathered from publications that suggest social changes such as rising personal incomes,more leisure time, single person household, and people's interest in gourment food will contribute to this growth.The flaws in the argument are stated below.
First,the argument states that the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth in the past decade. The presupposition that this growth shall continue due to recent social changes creates a paradox. As the changes are recent. they may not necessarily reflect the reason why the restaurant industry boomed in the past decade. Second, social changes such as rising personal incomes and more leisure time may not necessarily mean that restaurants can expect more customers. The increase in personal income may not reflect higher purchasing power. Also, more leisure time could be utilised by people for other activities such as sports, learning arts etc and not essentially for eating at restaurants.Furthermore,the argument states there are a considerable number of single person households in Spiessa.This does not clearly indicate how single persons will prefer eating at restaurants.However,the people's greater interest in gourment food might lead one to believe that the growth is warranted but the argument does not mention how many restaurants serve gourment food.
Third, the author draws the conclusion from a proliferation of publications. The types of these publications are not mentioned in the argument.It could be possible that these evidences are tainted in favor of the restaurant owners.Also,these publication may not have an official standing.
The author can improve his argument by providing more concrete evidence about how the publications reached the conclusion citing the boom in the growth industry.In summary,the argument is flawed as stated in the aforementioned paragraphs.
